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

Opening ArgumentsMy 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 ArgumentsMy 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 debateThe 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...