Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military

Thanks to my opponent for his round. I'll just go over my case, then my opponents case and respond to his arguments. =My case= Framework Con essentially concedes my framework. His only argument is that the debate is about "should" not "could", despite this being entirely irrelevant to my counter proposal of increasing selectivity to prevent any anti-Americans from joining the armed forces, instead of simply lumping together all Muslims and saying "you can't join". A) Irrelevance of religion Dropped and therefore conceded. This is a heavy blow for Con, as in this contention I argued that social/political beliefs are more relevant factors to judging someone's potential threat, terrorism has been perpetrated by non-Muslims in the past (turning the argument, my opponent tries to keep all Muslims out, terrorists or not, and I try to keep all terrorists out). I also argued that the cause of Islamic anti-US backlash is interventionism in the Middle East (dropped) as the hegemonic struggles of the coming era will revolve around control of the seas around Asia (dropped). This combined with historic resistance to repealing outdated policies shows that disallowing Muslims soldiers will serve only to prevent able bodied soldiers and technicians from serving in the conflicts of the future. My opponent only argues against this that Islam is the greatest threat America faces, but I'm quite confused as to where he draws this conclusion considering he literally dropped my argument showing how it's anti-Americanism not Islam that is the enemy. B) BacklashCon argues that I "confirmed" that many Muslims are anti-American. I never denied it and I gave a more plausible alternative reason for why this backlash occurs. I encourage my opponent to read the CATO analysis, it's quite extensive in showing that anti-US resentment stems from intervention. Indeed it appears that the Jihad and Holy War terrorists call for isn't even serious to them, it's just rhetoric. Bin Laden may have declared that the 9/11 attacks were "holy war" but when he actually outlined his motivations they were literally *all* based off of Western foreign policy[1] including: "Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnyaa , supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia,U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq."Con is simply wrong in stating that the cause of terrorism is Islam. We can see historically that Christians also committed terrorism, atrocities, and widespread violence but the reason was the ideology those particular people held (suppress all others), not the religion itself. Same with Islam, people should be judged as individuals not groupings. I don't think Con really understood this arguments and the importance of the middle east. The backlash against the US implementing a sweeping anti-Muslim policy would be vast. If Con thinks there's terrorism now, he should wait until his policy confirms many of the beliefs Muslims on the fence in the middle east hold about the US hating them. It's dubious that the US could mend it's relations with the middle east and therefore actually solve most terrorism by turning against Muslims. It's also unlikely that the US could keep it's influence within the region as many of it's old Realpolitik allied dictators are overthrown and replaced by democratically elected leaders. Middle Eastern public opinion is important to US interests there and being blatantly anti-Muslim is probably the worst possible way to fix things. Con also fails to engage my argument about liberals in the US. He says I didn't prove how this would hinder the military, but he dropped the warrant about how the Republican party is becoming more libertarian, so the democratic party needs its base to continue to support the military and intervention to maintain US hegemony. C) EffectivenessCon tries to argue that the debate is a philosophical one and not about what we can do, but we are talking about a policy change that he wants implemented. There's no reason to implement a policy if it won't work. You can extend this argument and vote Pro.Ideology vs. ReligionCon has this frankly ridiculous idea that religion and ideology are synonymous and that Islam is an ideology. First, even if it's true this ignores the warrant of my argument that the issue is anti-Americanism, not Islam even if both these were idologies. But it isn't an ideology, Religion as we all know is a comprehensive belief set that someone holds about the spiritual or supernatural realm, and an ideology is, as my opponents definitions show, a belief set or worldview about the natural realm. These are clearly different, and it's the ideology that Islam should take over everything else that is dangerous not Islam in itself or people who profess to be Muslim without holding beliefs in Islamic domination. Moreover even if Islam actually demands violence against infidels, the military can only possibly determine if someone is Muslim by how they identify themselves and most self identified Muslims don't hold terroristic ideology. Judaism has Mosaic law, but it isn't an ideology but a religion, same with Sharia. Ideology is an interpretation of religious law and it's application to real life.=Opponents case= Who is the enemy?Con misses the point of my rebuttal. The US went into the middle east to secure it's interests and combat terrorism, it didn't go in to kill all Muslims. To suggest so is absurd, and Con never gives any warrant for why Islam is the enemy instead of Anti US sentiment. Prefer my arguments.The QuranCon essentially concedes the entire debate, arguing "You need to recognize the difference in what someone does that happens to be of a particular religion and what a religion actual instructs." This was my entire point, the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to kill infidels and Con hasn't proven they will. Con basically drops my turn of the argument--remember that my plan solves for terrorism better than his does, so even being generous and assuming his arguments are all valid there's no reason for banning Muslims from the 19% of Pro-US Mosques. Recall also that Con hasn't even explained what "violent literature" even means. It doesn't matter if Hell is ultimately unbiblical or Jesus absolved the OT, what matters is that the teachings of many churches could also be thought of as violent (like Hell, taught in the majority of churches) so Cons argument is nonunique. Con ridicules my argument of how any anti-American can be dangerous, somehow thinking it's funny that Manning's leaks destroyed much of the military's credibility by revealing larger civilian casualties and diplomatic blunders[2]. HistoryMy opponent tries to ridicule my argument by pointing out historical wrongs committed by Muslims. Never mind the fact pretty much every religion has genocide on it's hands, Cons argument doesn't even follow. He said it himself, it's not nearly as relevant what a religion teaches as it is the actions of it's followers. Con doesn't understand the argument--motivations of pirates 200 years ago don't translate into motives for modern terrorists, my explanation is far more plausible than Cons. QuestionsI answered my opponents questions last round out of courtesy, but there's no rule in the debate that I have to. Since Con saw fit to call me a liar and accuse me of "beating around the bush" I'm not going to waste characters answering his leading questions. ConductCon tries to make a big deal of the conduct vote. Since he brought it up...Con has called me a liar, laughed at my arguments, and accused me of dodging his arguments. I didn't intend to misconstrue my opponents source, my argument applies for 7 cases just as well as 4. Vote Pro, even if you accept my opponents case my case solves and outweighs.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...