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

If the voters take a look at the videos, they'll realize that they either show people protesting, some of which for questionable government aspects but don't represent all of the refugees, or would show the video making portrayals and estimates of what the grand goal of the refugees are. The sources aren't twisting what the 'people are saying', they show titles and conveniently placed wording of "refugees" and "attacking" along with a few excerpts of the exceptions of the violent in the country. The sources just show what the publisher hypothesizes of the future, a unified radical Islamic agenda which is nothing more than bare assertions. My opponent says "The videos show these people destroying cities, attacking people, threatening to kill people, admitting to a planned invasion, demanding money for no work, calling for Sharia Law to take place as the law of the world, and they are not shy about this. " but none of these videos actually show any of that other than people assuming such a radicalization will take place. My opponent claims I failed to explain potential bias, but my claims state & prove that all your video sources are the product of independent channels and show nothing other than assertions themselves. These people protesting and causing riots could be protesting for a different agenda other than fundamentalism and do not represent the entirety of the refugees. My opponent claims that "Independent journalists are often the most reliable sources of accurate information because they are the ones that are willing to speak on topics that the mainstream media will never go near", an unfounded statement. I stated before that independent journalists are unreliable because they will be spewing their own agenda considering they don't have regulations regarding the altering of evidence and personal opinionations, like in mainstream media. This means they have the potential to publish mis-leading news and their own assertions of situations without the resources and ability to analyze the events fully [1]. Therefore, they are unreliable. My opponent uses his example of the Gulf of Tonkin concerning independent journalists, although, my opponent provides no foundation that they were the ones who uncovered the situation and it is improbable they could have because it was the USFG that was controlling the distribution of information regarding the event [2]. My opponent then uses a "No True Scotsman" fallacy regarding all media because they all have the potential to be biased [3]. My rebuttal to that which my opponent overlooked was the fact that independent journalists have the ability to bypass any form of media regulations because by a bureaucratic definition, they are not official media outlets. As for my opponent and his statements regarding the drug examples and Director Comey, to which I can find no sense whatsoever. What? What does that example have anything to do with Comey stating the FBI doesn't have the capability to process the established number the US wishes to establish? My opponent also did not refute my examples of the United States having the control over time and the situation at hand, as well as the American potential to divert more resources. I should also state it is not just the job of the FBI to single-handedly process each and every individual as the Department of Homeland Security is much stronger and capable of such. The DHS receives roughly $41.2 Billion annually [4] compared with the FBI receiving $8.3 Billion annually [5]. My point being that the FBI may not be entirely capable, although the USFG, and even just the DHS is, and has the potential to create more involvement. I continue the next rebuttals of my opponent with the simple rebuttal that the United States still has the power at hand to manipulate this problem into a solution by diverting more resources and allowing further involvement of the Department of Homeland Security, which they already participate in [6]. My previous arguments already null the arguments brought up by my opponent, as well as point out his fallacious statements regarding words I never stated. My opponent continues his argument with examples of Ferguson and Baltimore without refuting that the causes for the riots were irrelevant to any refugee riots in Europe. My opponent makes the claim that "My opponent has offered no proof that the refugees could not create another riot like Ferguson or Baltimore. " which I can easily counter with the fact that any group of angered persons can cause mass riots, including Far-Right wing protesters [7]. My opponent continues with another "What if" by "If the US cannot prevent radicals or terrorists from entering the country, and cannot prevent massive riots on US soil, how then would it not be possible for the refugees to cause the same type of chaos? " This of course can simply be refuted by the fact that the US is in full control of all people entering the country, concerning Middle Eastern refugees. A point my opponent still hasn't refuted, and I believe is safe to assume he succumbed to. I urge the voters to look at the YouTube links my opponent has provided and to not say with a nervous smile and chuckle that those videos aren't in the least bit assumptive. Not to mention, them being independent channels. I should also say that radical Islam does not represent all of Islam, since Islam has many different branches. I'd like to remind my opponent that the radicals that executed the September 11th attacks came Pre-9/11, before the drastic events took place and the current migration system of the US changed to ensure security [8]. I should also say that one of the strongest attacks in the US, the Oklahoma City Bombing, which took over 160+ lives, was motivated by an anarchist agenda from American born, American heritage, American citizens [9]. The next argument of my opponent still hasn't proven that all of Islam is radical, nor are all/the majority of the refugees entering Europe. My opponent also has not given any examples of refugees openly declaring an establishment of a European Islamic State. My opponent brings up Director Comey, still without refuting the flexibility of American fiscal allocation. My opponent still refutes my claims of source bias stating I did nothing to explain which makes me assume he's electively illiterate as 20% of my last arguments in the prior rounds were discussing why his sources were untrustworthy. If that isn't enough to show that your source has bias, I'm going to quote you and your criticisms to my sources. Source Criticisms1. ) My opponent doesn't realize this source was his own that I was making a reference to. I am astounded by the fact you didn't go to the trouble to even recognize your own foundations. You also admitted that it "Speaks more to conspiracy theories than fact. " (Refer to Round 2, Pro's Argument, Sharia Law YouTube Link). Due to character limits, I can't post more. I have to reserve space to my sources. As for any voters who don't believe my sources, look at them yourself. Sources[1] . https://journalismthefuture.wordpress.com...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . https://www.dhs.gov...[7] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[8] . http://www.migrationpolicy.org...[9] . https://en.wikipedia.org...