THW Temporarily Ban Muslim Immigration

Today, team proposition has utterly failed to understand what a "forfeit" means on this website. On this website, a "forfeit" is not equivalent to a concession; I had little internet access for the past few days because I was travelling. By deceptively categorizing a "forfeit" as a "concession", he has made a conduct error far worse than a forfeit ever could be. Introduction Today, we’ve had a team proposition come here and write a self-contradicting argument, saying in the same breath that temporarily banning all Muslims from coming here is necessary, while also saying that most American Muslims mostly not dangerous. He says that Islam is harmful because it churns out homophobia, while also stating that American Muslims are well assimilated, implying they generally hold liberal views consistent with that of American society. He sometimes says that the main threat from Islam is because Muslims are converted at prison, while at other times, he says that Islam is most threatening when it comes from outside. Instead of following this self-contradictory fear mongering, we should instead choose not to temporarily ban Muslim immigration. Signpost This argument will consist of two parts: reconstruction and rebuttal. I would also make a third point: comparing it to Jewish terrorism. Reconstruction Worsening of terrorism My opponent has stated that because the majority of American Muslims are happy with current day America, they’d still inexplicably remain happy when the American government changes laws to restrict them and them specifically, so the proposal wouldn’t cause tensions and terrorism. This idea is illogical because of the fact that the fact that Muslims are fine with the status quo says nothing about whether they’d become agitated by a change in the status quo. If the American government bans Muslim immigration, Muslims would begin to believe that they’re being discriminated against and that they don’t belong. While currently very few Muslims believe that they don’t belong, changing the status quo such that the American government singles out Muslims as a group to ban would definitely make many Muslims believe that they don’t belong. Because Muslims would see the United States as an entity hostile to them, they would join domestic jihadist groups to wage a war against a country that “discriminates against them”. This proposal would thus trigger more terrorism than it solves. Principle problems My opponent raised the example of Italian, Japanese and German immigrants being sent away in World War II because of legitimate concerns that they might have been spies; he reasoned that because there’s a legitimate concern of Islamic terrorism, it would be legitimate to ban Muslim immigration. However, while there was a legitimate risk of letting spies in during World War II, there’s no more a risk that a Muslim immigrant would be more dangerous than, say, a Jewish immigrant, as conceded by Pro in round one. Who are the terrorists? My opponent has stated that because most Muslims are immigrants, banning immigration would reduce the problem of Islamic terrorism. He believes that the main threat of Islamic terrorism comes from abroad. But at the same time, he ignores the fact that, according to my previous source, the majority of terrorists were born here. Thus, even if they had immigrant parents, they should have been assimilated already; my opponent has stated that “most Muslim Americans” are well-assimilated. As such, the majority of terrorists didn’t radicalise overseas, but became radicalised at home. Preventing people from coming here from overseas would not prevent the Muslim American population at home from radicalising on its own or from overseas influences that occur over the internet rather than through immigration. Homophobia My opponent has claimed that Islam is homophobic and outdated. He has the burden of proof because he’s advocating for a change from the status quo, and he has failed to show why banning Muslims from coming here would reduce the harms of Islamic homophobia. Rebuttal My opponent has argued that by placing a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, we can focus more on homegrown extremism because there’d no longer be a major threat from abroad. This argument falls apart, however, as soon as we consider that this proposal would alienate Muslim Americans, actively inciting terrorism, making homegrown extremism far worse than all the current foreign and domestic terrorism combined. Jewish extremism My opponent has conceded in round one that Jewish extremism is responsible for a similar percentage of attacks as Islamic extremism, and Jews make up a similar segment of the American population compared to Muslims. My opponent justified banning Muslims but not Jews by stating that because the majority of Muslims aren’t in America, they are a bigger concern. This ignores the fact that immigration is limited per year. It’s impossible that an amount of Muslims greater than all the Jews in the world would suddenly come to the United States because of immigration limits. [1] Thus, under the limited immigration that currently occurs, there’s practically no difference between the two groups. My opponent would either have to concede that we need to ban Jewish people as well, or somehow show that there’s a difference between the two groups when I have already shown flaws in his previous reason given. Sources [1]http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...