The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Muslim Ban Policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Corgi_Attack has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,411 times Debate No: 98558
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




Topic is the Muslim ban that Donald J. Trump had proposed during the GOP primaries. I will arguing against the policy.

In terms of the standards of this debate pretend we are two politicians arguing in a conventional debate format. We want to show why our side is superior in the real world.

The official wording (this is from his website,

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

First round is for acceptance ONLY.


I accept your challenge little dog.
Debate Round No. 1


I request that we do NOT add new arguments in the final round of debate. Since you have the last word I would appreciate it if you didn't sneak in new points. I would not have the opportunity to respond.

I will begin this round with six harmful consequences of my opponent's resolution. Then I will propose a Counter Plan (my opponent said running a Counter Plan would be fine) which avoids these disadvantages.

Disadvantage 1: Religious Discrimination

A ban on all Muslim immigrants is an insult to American values of religious freedom. Banning an entire religion (more than a billion people) is a clear violation of our treasured 1st Amendment. We should not have a "religious test" and discriminate against those of a different faith.

In addition to attacking Islam, the ban would set a precedent that would allow the government to ban other religious minorities in the future. Mormons could be next because they are also a weak religious group in terms of representation. Even though Mormons are Christians they face more bigotry than mainstream Christians because they are a religious minority. Hindus, Buddhists, Jesuits and Agnostics could be banned after them. An oppressive government could pick and choose which groups they didn't like and persecute them. When would the religious bigotry stop?

Furthermore, such a policy would cause a dramatic increase in hate crimes directed at Muslims. It would encourage blatant xenophobia and stereotype all Muslims as terrorists. Recently there have already been numerous hate crime against Muslims and their Mosques. My opponent"s plan exacerbates the issue. It has been proven that harmful rhetoric against Muslims increases hate crimes.

Disadvantage 2: Increases Recruitment of Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations

According to the (republican) Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, "Muslims are our partners. The vast, vast majority of Muslims in this country and around the world are moderate. They"re peaceful. They"re tolerant. And so they"re among our best allies, among our best resources in this fight against radical Islamic terrorism." This is true, most Muslims are moderate and don"t want a war with western society. Radical Islamic Terror groups such as ISIL have advocated for a war between Islam and Western society. Such a war would be catastrophic considering there are more than a billion Muslims in the world. We should not increase the manpower of our terrorist enemies.

Throughout the Middle East we are allied with moderate Muslims in the battle against extremists. We also give them weapons. If they find out that we have banned all Muslims from our country, many soldiers from our Muslim allies may join the terrorists and slaughter American patriots. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by creating a coalition that includes moderate Muslims. Moreover, in our own country we rely on Muslims to find extremists in their own communities. If Muslims angered by the Muslim ban refuse to report terrorists, this could result in the massacre of innocent civilians. Passing my opponent"s plan could butcher countless innocent people.

Disadvantage 3: Destroys Our International Relations with Allied Countries

This plan will cause irreversible harm to our international reputation. This can provoke trade wars with all of our trade partners. What"s more, the resolution damages our reputation as a champion of human rights. No longer would America be a symbol of freedom, religious liberty and democracy.

Disadvantage 4: Unfair to Pro American Muslims

Many Muslims love America and wish to experience the American dream. They believe in Western values especially religious liberty. Some would even give their own life to serve our country. To ban them from the country would be a clear mistake.

Disadvantage 5: Plan has No Solvency

This plan would not be ratified by congress. Moreover, even if passed, it would be difficult to implement. What if Islamic terrorists would lie and say they are atheists? It is naive to assume terrorists are trustworthy folks. Members of ISIL have no issue with lying, and it would be impossible to know for sure if they were Muslims.

Disadvantage 6: Extensive Use of Political Capital

Let us assume that somehow the plan was passed. Getting it done would require an unbelievable amount of political capital and bring out resentment towards our president (or technically president-elect). The vast majority of congressmen, senators, governors, etc are against this resolution. The political establishment would expect something in return for passing such an absurd policy. I can elaborate in the next round because I am running out of space.

The resolution is deeply flawed. Fortunately, I have a viable solution:

Counter Plan: Temporarily implement a pause on immigration for all immigrants from countries with a higher percentage of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It is critical to defend the security of our borders; we need to put America first once again! This list of nations would include (but would not be limited to): Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ukraine, Egypt, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sudan, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Libya. The list would not include countries with almost zero terrorism such as: Iceland, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, and New Zealand. There will be one caveat for immigrants from those peaceful countries. We will not accept any immigrant who moved from a high terrorism country to a safe country and wants to immediately come to the U.S. That would serve little purpose, be incredibly suspicious and therefore will not be allowed. Also we will have a thorough background check (including careful scrutiny of their travel history), civics test, citizenship test, etc for those immigrants from safe countries. This policy is superior to my opponent"s plan in every way. My Counter Plan will Make America Safe Again!

There are numerous reasons why this Counter Plan beats my opponent"s resolution. First off, it would be very unlikely to have terrorists coming from a nation such as Iceland which statistically has a much lower percentage of terrorism than the United States. Terrorist groups would have no chance of sneaking anyone in at this point. There is absolutely zero benefit for banning Muslims from Iceland or any other nation with a minuscule percentage of terrorists. There has never been a terrorist attack on American soil from a low terrorism country. Furthermore, my plan avoids the extreme disadvantages of banning all Muslims. My plan is realistic, constitutional, promotes religious freedom, preserves our international relationships, does not encourage a war with Islam, and it will be fair to the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful people.

I await my opponent's arguments in the next round.



1 Religious Discrimination

My opponent claims the proposed ban would be insulting to the American value of religious freedom and that it would be a clear violation of the
1st Amendment. Legal experts seem divided on this issue, but I will defer to the Supreme Court for that question. However, the immigration ban wouldn't
violate the religious freedom of any U.S. citizens. They could still observe and practice their religion as they currently do.

His next point seems to dance around the slippery slope fallacy. He holds up other religions as possible targets of persecution. I don't think that
implementing this policy, which could be temporary, would inevitably lead to any of the religions he listed being persecuted in any way. Those
possibilities seem unlikely to me based on the current context. As those possibilities would be examined on their own particular facts and circumstances,
I will not address them here.

My opponent then goes on to make a strong claim. He doesn't just say that there could be a an increase in hate crimes directed at Muslims. He claims
a DRAMATIC increase in hate crimes against Muslims would be the inevitable result of this ban. Obviously this possibility would represent a negative
cost of the policy, though my opponent has cited no evidence to back up his strong claim of inevitabilty or the "dramatic" scope he suggests.

2 Increases Recruitment of Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations

My opponent quotes Paul Ryan to support his point. I agree with Ryan and my opponent on a few of the points here. Having truly moderate Muslims as allies
will be important to dealing with many of the issues going on across the world, and specifically in the Middle East. Some of the other points I think
are less clear. Namely that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are moderate, peaceful, and tolerant. There are surveys and events that are contrary
to this claim. According to a Pew Survey of Muslims, there were alarming results on issues like suicide bombing civilian targets, and
punishments for adultery and apostasy. In Afghanistan, Egypt, and Palestinian territories, much less than 50% of Muslims answered that suicide targets
and other forms of violence against civilian targets were justified to defend Islam from its enemies. In Bangledesh and Jordan, the numbers for never
justified were 51% and 53% respectively. There were only 2 countries in the survey that surpassed 90% for this answer, and even then it was less than 95%.
In 8 countries surveyed, less than 50% of people answered that honor killing a male for committing adultery was never justified. It jumped to 9 when the
adulterer was female. In 7 countries in this survey, more Muslims answered that they favored than opposed the death penalty for people who leave the
Muslim religion. The data also suggests an intolerant view of homosexuals, as well unequal treatment of women. I would like to believe the statements made
by Ryan and my opponent, but the data highlights some worrying trends. For a more complete picture you can look to these sources:

My opponent goes on to say that to go to war with a billion Muslims would be catastrophic. He suggests that an immigration ban would lead to this. I
would hope this is a largely exaggerated and inaccurate belief, that the moderate, peaceful, and tolerant Muslims that represent a vast majority according
to him, could so easily be moved to support terror groups in stark opposition to those values. But I agree with the idea that we do not want to act in
ways that will increase the manpower or firepower of terrorists. Along the same reasoning, my opponent suggests the possibility that this policy could
cause Muslims in our own country to stop assisting the government in finding Muslim extremists. No evidence to support this belief is given, but
it seems to imply that this ban alone would cause Muslims to be either indifferent or supportive of massacring innocent civilians. I do not believe
this is true. I hope the majority of people, and specifically the people we're discussing, would be against such violence. We need the moderate Muslims,
and the Muslim nations in the region to come together to help find a solution to these violent attacks. A ban, possibly temporary, could give these nations
more incentive to deal with these threats. It could give the community more incentive to more openly denounce these radicals. Hopefully this would have
some persuasive impact on people who might otherwise show indifference or even support for these extreme views.

3 Destroyers Our International relations with Allied Countries

No evidence is given to support the claim that this ban would irreversibly damage our international reputation and provoke trade wars. I think the
problems we face are clear, and the intention of this ban is to protect innocent people from violence. We are very much in favor of human rights.
Many of the extreme views in question are opposed to this core American values that my opponent invokes in his argument.

4 Unfair to Pro American Muslims

It is true a total ban would include some Muslims who don't share the more extreme views. Some might even be willing to give their life to protect
the U.S., its values and its people. This is a fair point, it represents a cost or negative of the policy. But this problem is not easily avoided.
The opponent's proposed plan will also suffer from banning people that pose little to no threat. It will only be done with a different category.
A relevant question is which category would be ideal in terms of enforcement, cost, and effectiveness. Neither policy is exclusive though, so
we could instead choose a combination of the two if it seems more effective at achieving the goals.

5 Plan has No Solvency

Financial costs cannot be ignored, nor can the ability to implement and enforce the policy. I believe this policy is sustainable, and possible. It
would need to be designed so a simple lie wouldn't completely bypass the ban. These issues are also present with my opponent's plan. Even though
the categories are different, they still share similar issues. Lack of information, people lying, financial costs, etc. I think it is an
exaggeration to suggest that it's impossible to determine someone's religion if they deny it. Just like I wouldn't suggest it impossible to
determine an immigrant's country of origin without their confirmation. My plan doesn't exclude the possibility of the opponent's suggested plan,
and in fact the most effective solution might be a combination.

6 Extensive Use of Political Capital

My opponent claims that the vast majority of congressmen, senators, governors, etc are against the resolution. I c
Debate Round No. 2


This debate is continued in the comments.

I shall first disprove my opponent"s attacks on my disadvantages. My disadvantage points remain valid and clearly expose the foolishness of the Muslim ban.

DA 1: Religious Discrim.

Numerous legal experts do believe the ban will infringe on our 1st Amendment rights. I can cite them in the final round if needed. Our founding fathers had a vision of a country that respected all faiths, a nation without religious discrimination.

Throughout history there have been countless examples of oppressive governments which start off by targeting vulnerable minorities. It is easy to attack those who cannot defend themselves. Once discrimination becomes the norm, the government can move on to new targets. I would like to quote German Pastor Martin Niemoller. He witnessed the rise of Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. His quote reads: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out"Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out" Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out" Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me"and there was no one left to speak for me." This demonstrates how the Nazis started off with one unpopular minority group and built momentum from there. If only good samaritans had realized what was going on and stopped Hitler before the atrocities were committed. A government that discriminates against an entire religion would have no problem with attacking other minority groups. Therefore, my argument is valid and has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy.

There is no question about a significant increase in hate crimes against innocent Muslim civilians. My opponent"s policy would cause government sanctioned discrimination against a religious minority. If our own government condones such blatant religious discrimination, it would give the message that such behavior is acceptable. This has been proven over and over again through highly respected studies. Researchers at California State University, San Bernadino have compiled data showing "hate crimes against American Muslims were up 78 percent over the course of 2015. Attacks on those perceived as Arab rose even more sharply." They show how "the violent backlash against American Muslims is driven not only by the string of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States that began early last year, but also by the political vitriol from candidates like Donald J. Trump, who has called for a ban on immigration by Muslims and a national registry of Muslims in the United States." Just bringing up my opponent"s plan was sufficient to increase hate crimes. The federal government putting this policy into law would be far worse. The dramatic surge of anti-Muslim violence would be inevitable.
DA 2: Increased Terrorism

Let us assume my opponent"s allegations about Muslims are true. Even if there are many extremist Muslims in those cited countries, my plan would also pause immigration from those specified areas. I would like my opponent to show us statistics from Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand and Canada. He doesn"t have to because it would reflect poorly on his policy.

I do feel most Muslims are peaceful and moderate. That is just my opinion, however. My opponent says Muslims could not be moved to join terrorists. I agree that most Muslims wouldn't be swayed; that being said, Pews estimates there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Let"s assume a mere 2% or 1 out of 50 are on the border about whether to become radicalized. The U.S implementing a law of blatant religious discrimination, a law that targets Islam specifically, would be enough to cause them to join terrorist organizations. The biggest recruitment strategy of the Islamic state is to paint a false narrative of a war between Islam and Western society. Even if it was only 2% of Muslims who became extremists, it would create 32,000,000 (32 Million) terrorists. This would be an unmitigated disaster.

DA 3: Internat. Reputation

I am running out of time so I will expand more on this in my final round.

DA 4: Unfairness

I will discuss this more in my final round. If my opponent is okay with it I could continue in the comments section.

DA 5: Solvency
I have a question for my opponent. How would you determine if someone was lying? Assume this person is highly unethical, very dishonest, a skilled liar and does not appear to be super Muslim looking.

DA 6: Polit. Capital

I will first put my argument I had for round one. I had not expected to run out of space so quickly.

The political establishment would expect something in return for passing such an absurd policy. Hillary Clinton had advocated for a no fly zone in Syria which both me and my opponent agree could have resulted in a war with Syria and Russia. It is clear that this policy was with the backing of the political establishment and globalists since my opponent believes Clinton was a pawn of the political elite and special interests. John Bolton is currently the frontrunner for Deputy Sec. of State. Bolton, along with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, AIPAC, etc were all part of the neoconservative wing of the political establishment. Therefore, it was the political elites who got us into the disastrous war in Iraq. These are the very people Donald "I love making deals" Trump will be trying to strike a deal with, and these are also the elites who tend to get what they want. The wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq are just a few examples of wars orchestrated (at least partially) by the elites. Basically America has a huge military industrial complex and has been involved in countless wars throughout the last century. Furthermore, the establishment media has been repeatedly talking about the atrocities in Syria perpetrated by Assad (I agree he is a bad guy). Our close ally, Israel has been trying to bomb Iran for the longest time. As I said before, Trump wants "Bomb Iran" neoconservative John Bolton to be his deputy SOS. If my opponent"s plan is pushed through, there is a high probability of a war with Syria, Iran, Russia, or any combination of the three. As mentioned before a Muslim ban would require a significant concession in return. A war with Syria, Iran or Russia would each be much worse than the terrible war in Iraq. Maybe we will fight Russia, Iran and Syria at the same time. This would result in the murder of millions of innocent people and also thousands upon thousands of American soldiers. The severity of this impeding disaster is so immense that it is best to not risk it and literally gamble with the lives of millions. Millions of innocent civilians and countless brave American patriots could be mercilessly slaughtered by my opponent"s plan.

Counter Plan

Let"s assume X years is 10 years. It not difficult to determine country of origin. Finding out specific religion is much, much harder. I am glad my opponent finds one of his arguments


My opponent ignored the fallacious reasoning I presented was just a restatement of his own to show it was a weak argument. I will respond to his points and then provide more reasons to support my policy.

Several legal experts believe it would not be a violation of constitutional rights. I agree with their reading of the law, and there are good reasons to leave this question to the discretion of the people. I think the phrasing that the founding fathers "respected all faiths" is misleading. If read a certain way, one might think they admired all the faiths, which I seriously doubt. There"s a clear difference between allowing people religious freedom and completely ignoring religion as a factor with immigration policy. Regardless of your opinion of the Muslim religion, it goes against common sense to ignore a person"s beliefs when determining their right to enter the country.

Once again my opponent gives a slippery slope argument by an analogy to Germany under Hitler. Just because something has happened before does not make it inevitable to happen in the future. The context is clearly different here on all sides of the issue. My opponent tries to muddy the water with a common tactic of the left when it comes to discussing anything related to Trump: associate him with Hitler and the Nazis. Not only are we talking about completely different circumstances, but his example referred to completely different actions: Arresting, deporting, or sending people off to be murdered at death camps are obviously different than simply putting a halt on immigration. Here it seems you are relying more on emotion than facts and reasoning. As I stated in the last round, the slippery slope you imagined where the U.S. starts banning Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics are all different issues and I will not be addressing them here other than to say today they seem ludicrous.

It isn"t surprising a study from a university in blue California blames Trump for an increase in hate crime. Even the study you quoted points to another factor that could explain the increase in hate crime: Terrorist attacks across the world. I don"t deny this is something that can occur where a religious group declares themselves the enemy of a nation, people, ideology, etc. It"s easy to see how this can become a problem for others who might be innocent but who seem associated with them. My goal is to reduce crime, not increase it. For this point, the relevant question becomes: Would the ban prevent more crimes than it would cause? It is difficult to say, but a closer look at the data is needed to weigh the costs versus the benefits. From stats I"ve seen, the number of alleged hate crimes against Muslims in 2015 was 257. Going from that number, it would be useful to know the types of crime committed. My opponent assume basing the ban on geography will avoid this problem. That seems unlikely, especially considering 9 out of the 13 danger countries he listed had populations of 90%+ Muslim. People committing hate crimes probably weren"t asking which country their victims came from. With my opponent"s reasoning, country specific bans would lead to increased crimes against people who were, or appeared to be from, those countries. And since in most of the countries they were almost entirely Muslim, I expect the number of hate crimes caused by either his plan or mine would be nearly the same.

My statements were based on the sources I cited. I simply haven"t seen polls of Muslims from those countries, but my opponent tries to spin that to suggest I am ignoring data that "would reflect poorly on my policy". Making that claim suggests that my opponent has seen polling data from Muslims in those countries. If that"s true, he should cite it. Otherwise, he is making claims based on nothing but his own opinion and assumptions while trying to pass them off as verified facts.

There are stats from other countries that are also worrying. This includes polls in the US, France, Spain, Germany, England, and others. And yes, even in Denmark where a 2015 study found that 77% of Muslims believe the Quran"s instructions should be "fully applied" and only 53% thought that Danish law should be based on the constitution instead of the Quran. I plan to go into the statistics a bit more in the last round of the debate.

My opponent suggests that my policy could cause 2% of the world"s Muslims to become terrorists. This number and consideration seems to be pulled from nothing but his own guess. If this guess is accurate, it would indeed be a disaster to be sure. I really think that would be a fact that reflects worse on those 2% of Muslims than on the actual policy, but that would be little comfort if suddenly 32 million people became extremists. What if those 2% of Muslims felt as strongly about preventing the legalization of gay marriage? Or about Christians having equal rights? Or about a cartoonist drawing their prophet? Those might be a stretch. However, the Muslim population is so large, as soon as you pick a % and say x action will cause them to become terrorists, it is a disaster. The conclusion of my my opponent puts people on the verge of becoming violent psychopaths in charge of our government. Worse still, it forces us to open our country to them. It is a difficult issue to address, though my opponent"s policy likely suffers the same problems. He argues that most of the potential extremists are from dangerous countries he listed, yet imagines that banning a bunch of almost entirely Muslim countries won"t be seen as the West vs Islam to those hypothetical people on the fence.


A person trying to actively hide their religion might be difficult to catch. Perhaps a lie detector test, or using other forms of evidence. But this criticism applies to your counterplan: What if they lie about their country of origin/have a fake passport or no passport? You take all reasonable steps to enforce it, and accept that no policy is likely to be flawless.


My opponent makes a number of far-reaching suggestions of concessions that will be required to implement a ban on Muslim immigration. I"m not going to address each individual scenario since my opponent has just held up a conspiracy theory as his proof that his conclusions are true. Once again you"ve stated a problem that most likely applies to both plans, though I don"t believe Trump will be forced to concede a war (or multiple wars) to implement either policy.

To say I agreed with "many of your points" would be better phrased as: I acknowledged potential costs of the policy based on facts and reasonable expectations. Both policies, as I have shown, share similar problems. Hopefully, the viewers recognize this and use facts and sound guide their judgment.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ScryMind 2 years ago
I think Trump would support what I would call the ideal solution: A combination of your plan and my plan, both a ban on Muslim immigration and a ban on people from countries with a lot of terrorists. There are other ways to find out if someone is a Muslim besides just asking them to fill out a piece of paper. You can look at other evidence, you could ask them while they are hooked to a lie detector, etc. Sure, it will be more difficult if they are actively trying to hide it, but I could say the same about someone's country of origin. What if they lie, what if they have a fake passport saying they're from Sweden or France?

As far as I know, Trump's proposed policy was a ban on Muslim immigration only. In conversations leading up to this debate, that is the issue that was presented to me. In your own arguments, you specifically attacked the disadvantages of the policy as if it was only an immigration ban. That was my understanding when I accepted your debate, I certainly am not arguing for revoking citizenship and rights of all Muslims. That's a totally different issue.
Posted by Corgi_Attack 2 years ago
Is his current plan similar to my counter plan now? Scrymind is debating in favor of the original plan Trump brought up during the GOP primaries. I am showing it is flawed because of the aforementioned reasons.

My plan can accomplish the same as my opponent's while preserving our international relations, preventing more Muslims from becoming extremists, allowing us to still work with Muslim allies, having Muslim-Americans work with us in finding homegrown terrorists, etc.

Scrymind has not brought up any way to find out who is a Muslim and who is not. They could easily lie about their religion and there would be no way to find out.
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
Trump said Muslims coming into the country. He later said he won't accept anyone from terror affected countries
Posted by Corgi_Attack 2 years ago
Shapiro has consistently against Islamic extremism. Why would he risk his credibility to make up fake allegations about Trump. If the policy was really good at stopping terrorism why would Shapiro make up lies about it?
Posted by Corgi_Attack 2 years ago
Well I'm fine with this debate being about only Muslim immigrants. However, I was just quoting Ben Shapiro. Shapiro said: "Trump is not referring only to foreign Muslims. He says his ban applies to "everyone." If that"s the case, why would he quash the rights of millions of Muslim Americans, many of whom serve in the police and armed services? How would he propose to take away rights without due process? And why in the world would he? This is truly frightening and disgusting stuff."

Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
Trump's policy is for Muslims trying to come here. He never mentioned American Citizen Muslims lol
Posted by Corgi_Attack 2 years ago
My plan protects the safety of Americans while avoiding many of the huge disadvantages of a complete Muslim ban. According to Ben Shapiro: "He said this would include Muslim servicepeople serving overseas, as well as Americans traveling abroad." For this debate we can assume the ban does not ban U.S citizens as well. However, it would be disturbing if this policy made American Muslims give up their rights.

I laid out many problems with the ban in my arguments. I will mention one again here:

At home we rely on American Muslims to stop homegrown terrorists. In foreign countries we also work with moderate Muslims to fight against the extremists. The only lasting solution to defeating terrorist groups like ISIS is to create a broad coalition of moderate Muslims to take up the battle. The U.S or the West can't do everything on its own. Quoting Shapiro again: "We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It"s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It"s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That"s what this policy does."

My plan protects America from Islamic extremists without causing the immense damage of a total Muslim ban.

Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
It's either you, or it's them....what would you choose? Risk your children or stop them from possibly bombing Americans. If it doesn't happen, all the Liberals will be to blame. Just don't blame it on guns again.
Posted by Corgi_Attack 2 years ago
(Continued): I am glad my opponent finds one of his arguments fallacious. I applaud his honesty (not sarcastic). I can respond to the children argument in comments or final round.

Unfortunately, I am almost out of time. I have a flight scheduled tomorrow morning.


My opponent has agreed with me on many of my points. He even believes the resolution is problematic. My policy is the better choice. I am confident viewers will see the truth.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to the final round.

This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.