ban islam

Well for starters, the resolution is extremely vague and it has not been explicitly defined by the proposition. "Ban Islam" could mean any number of things -- it could mean literally making it illegal for people to practice Islam, it could mean barring Muslim immigration to the United States, and a myriad of other more imaginitve interpretations of the resolution could also be invoked. This is because the proposition failed in it's duty to define the resolution, a job which is even more accutely necessary when the resolution is so vague. Since someone needs to define it, I'll attempt to do just that. You might say that the resolution "ban Islam" isn't vague at all, but it is in the context of Pro's argument, which alludes to "acceptance of muslim immigration" -- a hint which implies that the Proposition isn't arguing for banning the practice of Islamic faith, but rather that Pro would ban Muslim immigration to the United States. The truth is that I don't know whether this is what Pro meant, but since I'd like to be fair to pro, I'll define the resolution in a way that is easiest for pro to defend. Now, if Pro disagrees with these definitions, pro is free to provide different definitions, and provided that they give me enough ground in this debate, I'll accept them. Now it would be unfortunate if the definitions change in the last round of the debate, but that would be because Pro didn't define things in the first round of a TWO round debate. Let's not dwell too much on that, though. Ban -- outlaw the entry of Islam -- all Muslim immigrantsNow there is one other thing to define that isn't in the resolution. Where? Where would all Muslim immigrants be banned? And the answer my friends isn't just blowing in the wind, it's the US of A. Unless my opponent is a Brexit or Le Pen supporter from Europe, or a right winger from Latin America or non-Islamic parts of Africa and Asia. But for the sake of argument, let's just say that this ban will happen where we have the greatest ability to inflict this draconian policy on over a billion people, here in America. Let us look at my opponent's statements."raising awareness justifies those who fall to the terror of islams existence." I didn't know that you could "justify" a victim in a positive way. Usually when you hear the words "justify" and "the terror" it's about appologists who are defending heinous acts. "so it is good that muslims rape torture and murder, as is opposing islam, good..." Well, if the premise of the statement were true, (and it's not, as we will see) would that [rape, torture, murder] really be good? Don't worry, I'm not that literal minded, and maybe I'm being nitpicky, but it is strange that good is used sarcastically the first time and earnestly the second time. By now you probably think I'm a priggish school marm who ought to get down to brass tacks instead of talking about grammar. Well, the premise of your statement is false. Some Muslims do terrible things and so do some Jews, and so do some Christians. By that same tolken, some extremists on the left and right have committed terrible atrocities. That doesn't make everyone on the left evil, and it doesn't make everyone on the right evil. This isn't just basic common sense, it's also fair and just to understand the world in its shades of gray, rather than to simply hate a large group of people for the actions of a much smaller subgroup. A cool headed debater may critique your statements for being illogical, but I'd go a step further -- it's bigotry. Sorry, but that's what it is. And this "awareness" you wish to raise is nothing more or less than a cocktail of fear and hatred. Those are the same irrational emotions that drive ISIS fighters to rape torture and murder. Another thing to consider is that the main guy in American politics who is pushing this Islamophobic narrative is Donald Trump, a man who has proposed to reinstate torture and go further than water boarding. If (some) Muslims are dangerous because they resort to torture, then why isn't Donald Trump held to the same standard? Alright, now for my contentions. Contention 1: Banning Muslim Immigration to the United States is un-Constitutional. a. The most obvious reason for this can be found in the first amendment which prohibits the government from restricting "the free exercise of religion". Banning a religious group from immigrating to the country would clear be a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, if my opponent meant something else by the resolution, (a complete ban on Islamic worship, for instance) than it would be an even more obvious violation of the first amendment. b. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees "equal protection under the law" to all American citizens. If my opponent's ban on Muslims entering the country applies to Muslims who are U.S. citizens who are returning to the U.S., and if they are banned on the grounds that they are Muslim, such a discriminatory practice would violate the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, if this ban is broader than immigration, if it involves other forms of discrimination against American Muslims, than it would be an even graver violation of the 14th and 1st Amendments. Contention 2: Banning Muslim Immigration would be counterproductive to our national security. This is for a variety of reasons: a. This will deepen the rift between the Western and Islamic World. ISIS and the Al Nusra Front and Al Queda will exploit such a ban in the Middle East -- where it will be a major propaganda coup. They will be able to push an "us vs. them" narrative if America bans all Muslim immigration. This will help terrorist groups recruit people in the Middle East, and in Europe, and Muslims who are still living in Europe and America may also be more succeptible to extremist propaganda if they feel isolated, if they feel that their cousins abroad are being discriminated against by such a policy. b. Allies and neutral countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey (which is more neutral than the other countries on this list) would be affronted by such a ban, expecially as it would effect all of their citizens, and because such a ban would be quite a slight against their religion. Our position in the region will deteriorate, not only because of people who may be recruited to fight for terror but because we may lose state actors in the fight against terror. This will mean less intelligence about plots around the world, including plots that may be directed against the United States. Which brings me to my next point. c. Law enforcement agencies such as the FBI largely depend on Muslim informants to alert them to terrorist plots. Discriminating against Muslims will probably alienate at least a few Muslim informants, and the informants who are alienated by such policy(ies) may have information that makes the difference between life and death. Thus discrimination for the sake of national security is not only unjust, it will also severely undermine our national security. And that reminds me of another issue. This is morally reprehensible. Contention 3: Such a ban would violate the values that make our country strong. There is a reason why this policy is Unconstitutional in multiple ways: it goes against the values that we stand for. Now granted, we don't always live by those values, but we certainly ought to. In a free, democratic society, no person should be made a second class citizen on the basis of their race, religion or creed. No person should be denied entrance to the country because of how that person worships. It's hyppocritical, it's un-Constitutional, it's un-American, and more importantly than that, it's unjust. Contention 4: We'd suffer from brain drain -- talented people won't be able to contribute to our society. More on this later.