Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. I think this debate is an exceedingly clear decision, and in this round I will attempt to illustrate why I think so. =My case= A) Irrelevance I solve for Con's impacts: Con makes makes no attempt to engage my counter-proposal of increasing selectivity to prevent any anti-Americans from joining the armed forces. His only argument is to try and ridicule my example of other, non Muslim anti-Americans in the military by citing, of all people, Manning's attorney in his trial for treason. Nevertheless, my point was to illustrate that Muslims aren't the only people who could bring potential harm to the military--Con drops the harm to the military that occurred from the leaks. Con never seriously argues (for obvious reasons) that no non Muslim could be a terrorist or harm/betray the military (like Manning who was just convicted of treason. .. ) so increasing background checks and selectivity to ensure that no anti-Americans get through is ideal. Especially if Con wants this debate to not take place in reality but rather in a some ideal fantasy land where we can actually effectively ban any group of our choosing, banning all potential terrorists instead of just some (Muslims) along with a much larger component of innocent non-threats is clearly superior. Con makes no response to my argument that the conflicts of the future will take place in the seas of East Asia and other places where US and Chinese hegemony collide, not the Middle East and the historic difficulty of repealing old policies. This means that in the more critical conflicts of the future in the Con world we have a lot fewer soldiers for no reason. Con drops my argument and the CATO card explaining that the calls for Jihad are just rhetoric and terroristic grievances are all based off Western foreign policy. This shows that, like I've argued the entire round, the motivation for terrorism stems from anti Western sentiment due to Western meddling. Con tries to show that terrorism has to stem from Islam because centuries ago violence did, but he makes no link to the real world of today. B) BacklashCon makes no response in his last round to the importance of the Democratic party to the future of US military hegemony and how banning Muslims will turn off liberals from the military. Vote Con to cripple the military. Con completely fails to counter my argument about the anti-US backlash that *will* occur if we implement a sweeping anti-Islamic policy for no reason. Con contends it doesn't matter since people in the Middle East are already anti-US, but we all know that not everyone in the Middle East holds these perceptions of the US as the enemy (although many more will if we ban Muslims from the military), and Cons policy will serve only to enforce and solidify the anti-US beliefs of those who do hold them. Vote Con to increase terrorism, and vote Con to increase anti-Western governments in charge of key oil supplies because Con dropped my argument about the Middle East becoming more democratic as old pro-US dictators are overthrown. Honestly even being generous and granting Con limited solvency for terrorism and somehow discount my counterplan, this contention alone still vastly outweighs any impacts he may have. It's also noteworthy that throughout the debate my opponent hardly argued any impact instead preferring to argue that Muslims are bad. But we have no impact--HOW MUCH would terrorism decline? Even ignoring every argument I made entirely there still isn't enough reason to change the status quo! C) IneffectiveEither you go with Cons interpretation of the resolution or mine. I argue that since we're debating a matter of policy, we should base the debate on reality and real world impacts. Con clearly loses here because outside of arguing about the meaning of should he drops my argument about how potential terrorists would just pretend to not be Muslim and still join, meaning that his case doesn't even solve for itself and the only impacts in the round are the negative impact from banning honest, non terroristic Muslims and backlash. If you go with Cons interpretation of the resolution where we can completely exclude groups, excluding anti-Americans is a lot less arbitrary and more effective than excluding Muslims, and captures all of the potential Muslim terrorists Cons case solves for. =Opponents case= Who is a Muslim? You can extend my argument about how the only way the military could know who is a Muslim is their self identification. Even if you buy Cons argument about how Islam is inherently violent (you shouldn't--other religious texts contain violence and have had terrorists adhere from their faiths and I give a more plausible reason for terrorism than my opponent), you can still vote Pro because the vast majority of self-identified Muslims don't have terroristic beliefs and Con certainly hasn't proven that they do. Con may contend that they aren't "real" Muslims--ridiculous because people of all religions disagree about the meaning of scriptures ALL THE TIME- but the military banning "Muslims" would ban all self identified Muslims, not just Cons "real" evil Muslims. Prefer my plan that actually solves for all anti Americans. If Con contends that this is a hypothetical debate not based off reality, my plan of banning all anti-Americans has more positive impact and is clearly more moral as it doesn't ban thousands of people from the military unfairly. Ideology vs. ReligionCon insists on sticking to his argument that Islam is an ideology. Why? Because Sharia law. Con drops that other religions such as Judaism are not ideologies but also have legal systems, but insists on arguing that the existence of Sharia law proves Islam is an ideology. Con ignores my argument about how ideology, in relation to Sharia law, would revolve around he application of Sharia law to the real/modern world. Con just simply fails to prove that all Muslims must advocate Sharia law and world domination because some scripts of the Quran advocate it. He argues that if someone doesn't follow every command of the Quran they are not a Muslim but an Infidel--this is in conflict with my far more rational argument that a Muslim is someone who self identifies as following the Islamic faith, but even ignoring that this is absurd. People break the commands of their religions ALL THE TIME, no one follows the entire text of a Holy book word for word, and religious scholars of all faiths are in continual disagreement about the meaning of their texts. This means that while some Muslims and Mosques will accept a literal interpretation of the Quran and want Islamic domination and are therefore dangerous, many others will not. Con makes no attempt to illustrate how many Muslims believe in a strict literal interpretation of the Quran--it's probably not many, or the number of terrorists would surely be larger. Con again drops my argument about how he never explains what "violent literature" means, and that even if we consider it dangerous there are still many Mosques not advocating it. Remember also the a literal interpretation of the Bible means people burn in eternal conscious torment for all eternity but we can both agree that many Christians who's churches teach this are ultimately decent people, so Con doesn't show a huge danger from Mosques reading distasteful literature as long as their people don't act on it. My plan is clearly superior to Cons blind ban on all self proclaimed Muslims.