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

Any bias a source may have becomes irrelevant when the people in question are recorded speaking and acting the way they do. My opponent seems to be under the impression that these people are not representing themselves on video, that the source is somehow twisting what these people say. That is a deflection because seeing these people on video only proves the motion to be true. 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. My opponent has failed to explain how a potential bias could us skew the video evidence. These people are self representing and they are not shy about it. 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. The Gulf of Tonkin attack that catapulted the US into the Vietnam war turned out to be a lie. Mainstream media refused to report on the issue, it was independent journalists that took the information and made mass amounts of people aware of it. This is known as a false flag event and there have been quite a few brought to light because of independent journalists. My opponent seems to be under the impression that just because information comes from a particular source it can hold no validity or authenticity, if we were to accept this line of thought virtually all media sources become impossible to rely on and we end up being completely in the dark. Heres an example to simplify the point Director Comey and the counterterrorism expert were making. Suppose Kevin has been a drug dealer for many years but he has never been caught for it. Kevin applies for a job and when they do a background check no drug charges appear on his regard. Does this mean that Kevin never used or sold drugs? No, it just means that he wasn't caught! He didn't make the ripples the Director spoke of and therefore Kevin would be eligible for hire. It's that simple. FBI counterterrorism expert stating that the US does not have the resources to vet all the refugees and expresses the danger of ISIS using the refugees to infiltrate the US. Counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka stating we dont have the resources to properly vet the refugees If this is the argument my opponent believes to be irrelevant, I would ask him to explain in detail how it is not dangerous to ignore the opinions of those that are responsible for the vetting of all the refugees. If they believe that the system is so flawed that ISIS could use the refugees to infiltrate the US, does that not speak directly to the dangers of allowing them into the country? Ferguson and Baltimore were used as examples to show that we already have similar riots to those in Europe. Both cities suffered arson, looting, people being attacked, police officers being attacked, police cars being set on fire and destroyed. The fact is, riots are already happening in the US. My opponent has offered no proof that the refugees could not create another riot like Ferguson or Baltimore. The reason for the riots are irrelevant, but the fact that they happened proves it is possible for refugees to do the same. 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? The first video provides a look into what radical muslims have planned for the US. (mute this video, terrible song for video) My opponent stated "Nearly none of the refugees were responsible for the attacks, and are allegedly scapegoats of ISIS in their recent attacks" I'd like to remind my opponent and everyone reading this that it only took 19 terrorists to perform the attacks of 911. All of whom came here legally. Again, right-wing bias is brought up but not the radicals very own words. Yet again my opponent has dodged the undeniable proof of these people being caught on video. The right-wing did not put those words in their mouths nor make them cause such destruction, they simply make people aware of the evidence. It is true the the geographical proximity of the EU to neighboring countries created a particularly difficult situation but that does not undermine the statements of Director Comey. My opponent seems to be leaning quite heavily on the alleged bias of my sources but has done nothing to explain away the words and actions of those in the videos. He has failed to explain how a bias could change the proof. Is he suggesting that somehow the right-wing bias altered the words in the videos? That they were behind the riots in Europe? That the right is forcing these people to say and do these things? Ill respond to each source my opponent used 1. A truly fascinating video that I intend sit down and watch all the way through, however it does virtually nothing to help make his case. It has zero relevance to the main topic. Speaks more to conspiracy theories than fact. 2. I did not use the source mentioned in the article. Even if I had, how do you explain away the video proof? 3. Being behind schedule means literally nothing because the intention is still 10 thousand. As the FBI Director stated "you can vet until the cows come home" Time is not the issue, its the lack of reliable sources in Syria. As stated before there are those that could get past every vetting process but still be radical, have terrorist ties, or even be an ISIS member. There are just too many flaws with the process that time alone cannot solve. 4. Ferguson riots were not committed by refugees but it goes to show that massive riots can happen on US soil. 5. See 4. 6. A group of peaceful protesters does not negate what radicals have done and continue to do. Radicals are still calling for the deaths of Christians and Jews. Keep in mind the radical that killed 80 people in Nice, France. Radicals do not want peace, they've been saying as much for countless years. 7. This video actually reinforces my position. Again, geographical prox plays a part in Europes situation but this video speaks volumes about the types of people trying to infiltrate the west. 8. I would have used this video if I had known of it. It goes to show even further how dangerous radicals are. 9. I dont know what to say about this link. Perhaps my opponent accidentally used it. 10. See 9. 11. Great website