Political Correctness and Terrorism

Due to time constraints, I don't have a lot of time to proofread my arguments for grammatical errors. That being said if you see any typos please try to understand my situation. Anyway, without further ado, I'll begin my refutations/rebuttals. My opponent's quotes will be italicized1) Social marginalization and exclusion "PC enforcers seek to divide and atomize us, by class, race, sex, and sexuality. So let’s take them up on it. Let’s bypass the institutions controlled by them in favor of our own. Who says we can’t create our own schools, our own churches, our own media, our own literature, and our own civic and social organizations? Starting from scratch certainly is less daunting than fighting PC on its own turf".My opponent states that the ones who are attracted to extremism and the ones who commit terrorism are usually the ones who are ostracized by society. Even if we were to perceive it as the truth that terrorist groups recruit social renegades that still doesn't prove anything, and in fact, the opponent only supports my stance. I would argue (supposing that what my opponent said is true) PC is what helps to contribute to this issue of marginalization and division of such individuals from our communities by categorizing people into different groups. Essentially, separating people into different groups doesn't help achieve unity and solidarity, it only further keeps us divided. The reason people (though it still happens) know that using racial epithets is wrong and inappropriate is not because they're pressured into doing so by political correctness, but because they have manners. Being respectful is what abstains us from using such profanities. To be succinct and on-point, political correctness must be abolished as it only contributes to the issue, rather than resolving it. http://www.zerohedge.com...;"Terrorists turn to terror because they feel socially alienated and they seek a sense of deeper belonging and acceptance. This is true for several reasons".Con also argues that there is a specific social, psychological profile that terrorists fall under. However, professionals in the field say that "as of now, there is no specific terrorist profile...They come in all shapes and sizes". http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com...;2) Psychology of terroristsBasically, if psychological professionals already had a compiled list of characteristics and attributes that could identify a potential terrorist, it would've made the fight against terror much easier. Nevertheless, terrorism is unpredictable, and the people who commit such acts are unpredictable as well. For instance, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (the brothers who bombed the Boston marathon) were accepted into America with open hands. Dzhokhar was quite popular in high school and he rarely expressed interest in Islam; he was moderate when it boiled down to religious beliefs. Overall, he had a normal, average teenage life before committing his heinous act. http://www.bustle.com... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn't a social outcast, he had an average life (as I've mentioned before). He was introduced to radical Islam by his brother. Social isolation is just a scapegoat which was created to divert us from the real source of the problem. There's an answer as to why young men like the Tsarnaev brothers are frequently indoctrinated into such movements: Social scientists have found that Isis militants are no different than us in terms of mental state and stability. In fact, Israeli psychologists Ariel Merari who evaluated Palestinian suicide bombers (their bombs malfunctioned) has said that a vast majority of those individuals are not mentally unstable. Well then, what causes youngsters to leave their homes and join international terrorist organizations like Isis or wage jihad in their "infidel", western countries? Frankly, the answer to this question varies and is still shady; therefore, there's no definite, concrete answer. However...Anthropologist Scott Atran who works alongside with the UN Security Council says that these individuals are the product of "self-radicalization". Essentially, it's one's choice, just like it's one's choice to join the military, become a police officer, a pastor, vigilante, and so on. These young men are fighting for a cause they believe; to put this simply, they're deceived into fighting for a group of people who profit from these wars.http://www.npr.org...;3) Ghettos and social decay Again, my opponent is using the scapegoat card. He is doing his best trying to divert us from seeing the real issue here. I guess PC has festered in him as well (*failing at comedy*). Anyway, to negate the contention, I ask the audience to look at this situation from a different viewpoint. You see, Europe's crime rate has skyrocketed after the migration influx (primarily of citizens from Islamic countries). The tsunami of migrants is what caused Sweden and Denmark to become rape capitals of Europe. It has jettisoned to the point where Belgian authorities are proclaiming that Brussels has become one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. If you don't believe me, allow me to provide you some data.-Sweden: 77% of rapes by 2% of male Muslim migrant population-Norway: 69% of rapes increased in 2012 in Oslo-Norway: Most suspects of rape are men who identify as Muslim-Denmark: Researchers from the University of Copenhagen found that Muslim men are most likely to lead a criminal lifestyle.http://www.commdiginews.com... https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com... There are certain communities across Sweden where medics must be escorted by police because of the prevalent violence and criminal activity in these parts of town. However, that still doesn't stop the perpetrators from attacking even the police. The reality is these communities are collapsing and they do not abide the law. So, I challenge my opponent to answer this question: How are you supposed to save a community if it's always the subject of vehemence and havoc that is caused by the members of such communities? http://www.redflagnews.com... 4) Words inspire violence Though I've already spoken about this, I wouldn't mind readdressing it in this contention. For this example, I'll be using Adolf Hitler's come to power. Hitler started out as an orator at a bar where he was giving speeches about the hard times the country was experiencing, and overall, encouraging people to take a stand-up and answer to the government's injustice; if this hadn't happened then the Beer Hall Putsch would not have happened either. In general, Hitler was giving hope to these people. The country was under extreme financial tensions where it was still recovering from the hyperinflation that happened in the early 1920s. The same course of action is seen in Islamic countries, the countries that are overridden by poverty and corruption. Leaders of terrorist groups are fostering hope in people that if they fight in the name of jihad they'll be able to achieve solidarity and peace amongst their Muslim peers. That is what indoctrinates and deceives young men for fighting for such causes. *Conclusion* Being politically correct--though it says to advocate for people's unity and supports egalitarian principles--divides people by categorizing them in groups. PC creates a scapegoat for an existing issue. It is no secret that Islam has been accountable for a vast number of terrorist attacks in 2016, and simply stating that Islam had nothing to do with such cases is ludicrous. Fundamental Islam is still classified as Islam, and blaming it on the radicals still doesn't eliminate the fact that it was done in the name of the same religion they worship. Henceforth, neglecting this issue will only cause it to grow faster and stronger.