European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters

I thank the Contender for his courteous statement. First of all, the Contender brings up the issue of current ISIL fighters returning to the US and EU on passports that have not been canceled. This contention is off-topic because the resolution has to do with potential ISIL fighters. My definition of "potential" is found in my first round challenge. My plan would, of course, revoke the passports of fighters whom the EU recognizes are actually fighting with ISIL. They are actual fighters, not potential fighters. The Contender's first paragraph argument is off-topic and irrelevant. Second, the Contender has not addressed my mission creep theory, found in Harm 1 and Harm 2. Normally, in policy debate, when a Neg team does not address one or more Aff contentions, it means that Neg agrees with Aff in those areas. However, the Contender clearly does not agree with me in this area, as he contends that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Such a statement is perfectly appropriate in an election such as the Scottish Independence referendum, in which the needs of 55 percent, the many, outweigh the needs of 45 percent, the few. However, if my "mission creep" contentions of Harm 1 and Harm 2 hold true, the needs of the few in this case directly affect the needs of the many. I also disagree in principle with the Contender's statement, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. When a lion and a wolf and a lamb vote 2-1 to have the lamb for dinner, that is pure democracy. The needs of the many win over the needs of the few. When the 80 percent of a country that are of one race decide to impose severe societal restrictions on the 20 percent that are of another race, the needs of the many win out over the needs of the few. However, in a functioning government and a functioning world, the needs of the few should not outweigh the needs of the many. Rather, the few should be recognized and given a special place in society. Of course, such a philosophy would never be used to justify giving terrorists their "rights" to an equal standing in society. Terrorists should be brought to justice, even if it means killing them without a trial in order to save the lives of the many. However, we must never deny rights to people who legitimately have them and justify our actions in the same way. This is the place where we must distinguish between potential activity and actual activity. We must make every effort against those who are actually involved, but those who merely wave ISIL flags in the streets of our countries are not actually involved; they are exercising free speech. They have not yet made any incursion on our rights. Their rights must not be denied them. Again, we do not attempt to capture our own citizen ISIL militants on account of their right to a fair trial. If you saw someone assaulting your daughter, you would not sit back and watch because he has his right to a fair trial. You would kill him. We are engaged in the crisis of the moment in Iraq and Syria. When our own citizens are killing Iraqi and Syrian minorities, we must kill them. We can, of course, capture them and give them a fair trial, but if there is any risk to human life whatsoever, we must kill them. Travel bans do nothing to protect countries. Actual citizen fighters must either be subdued or killed, and potential fighters who have yet done nothing wrong have their rights just like every other citizen. Those who are guilty of conspiring to fight must be subdued and put in prison, where travel bans have no effect on them. The Contender also contends that there are hundred of thousands of fighters (ostensibly in ISIL). His only citation is Wikipedia, a site that is fundamentally unreliable for citations. Furthermore, the page itself places the upper estimates at 100,000, which is not the same as "hundreds of thousands". Moreover, the CIA has placed estimates far lower than that. In conclusion, the Contender seems to have violated the topicality of the resolution. The resolution concerns potential fighters, based on my definition of "potential" found in my first round challenge. Actual fighters are not considered within the scope of this resolution. The contender also makes the errant statement that the safety of millions is more important than the "fundamental rights" of hundreds. This is quite incorrect in context. The Contender also dropped Harm 1 and Harm 2, and according to the etiquette of policy debate, is forbidden to introduce these again in his final speech once he has dropped them in a previous speech. I thank and congratulate any reader who has read to the end of this argument. As this is my last argument, I encourage the voter to take everything the Neg says in his final statement with a grain of salt, because I will not have an opportunity to refute it myself. I thank the reader and the Contender again and urge the voter to submit an affirmative ballot at the end of the round. Thank you. http://www.businessinsider.com...