Banning Muslims From Entering U.S.A Is Great Idea

My oppenent starts off saying if I thought his sources was wrong, and I should argue more sensible. This is a debate, you must link your sources or that's a error and could be a point off. He than says that my arguments consist of one example of radical attacks everytime. His arguments are false, I was giving out the Germany reports as well. I can give more examples for voters if those weren't enough. The Paris shooting(2015), Boston Bombing(2013), San Bernardino attack(2015), Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack(2015, and Porte de Vincennes siege(2015. All of these had radical muslims that swore their alligence to ISIS. Anyways his next argument towards the Orland Shooting argument I made. Was that the media shows what the goverment wants it to show and that the idea the gunman didn't work alone and it was a conspiracy to help a secret goverment agenda. He then leaves a link to his source, hopefully the source can A: prove that the media shows what the goverment wants to show,B: prove that there was a conspiracy to help a secret goverment agenda, and the security agencies were involved, and the least of them all C: prove that the gunman wasn't working alone, which wouldn't really matter as it was still a radical muslim attack. His sources are sadly conspiracy theroies . But it never proves that it was a inside job or if the media was lying to work for the goverment. Keep in mind his source is a conspiracy theory. And the point still stands that it was a radical muslim terroist attack. NOTE: There were 320 people in the club according to VOX and the man had 345 bullets. It would be like shooting a fish in a barrel. He only shot 100 people out of 320, that mean't 220 were left unharmed physically. Con says Omar was born in America. He was still a radical muslim who attacked a gay club. And his family were muslim immigrants. He then says don't trust the media, but he doesn't really prove that the media is lying and he than says that Omar could have not killed 49 people himself. We already argued the conspiracy THEORY. 1.Con says Christians killed 149 in 2016 while Muslims killed 49? First of all that's false, if we are talking about in general than Muslims killed 10125(2016) and they are starting to come to America. Second of all even if that was true, it still wouldn't mean we shouldn't do the ban. ALSO: Radical Muslims attacks are done for their religion, Con's sources doesn't say if it was relgious christian attacks. So it can't be their religion to blame if they weren't doing it for religious reasons, but these radical muslims do pledge that it's for their religion. ISIS is religious movement. 2. Con continues with the conspiracy. But I already argued the conspiracy. 3. Con continues with the argument of the fact that the mass shooter was born here. But his same sources say his family was muslim and were immigrants. 4. Con continues saying that only 0.0002 of terroist attacks were done by Muslim, but this was from 2014. Most of the terroist attacks I list are after that. People are still killed either way. 5. Con continues with the idea that Christians are worse, and kill more people. First of all let me say that banning muslims to stop radicals from coming in is easy to do, as most of these attacks are religious wise, which like I said ISIS is indeed a religious group driven by faith. A other challenge is the fact that Christians make up most of America, and they are already in America so we can't kick them out or else that's against the constitution. Pew Research says 70 percent are christians. Now that we have that out of the way, we can conclude that it's easier to ban Muslims first, than we can deal with any other religious attacks in America. Just because there is one threat it doesn't mean we can't take action towards a other and let them start coming in to kill Americans, CON still doesn't prove that it's a bad idea. He just says " the main threat will still be there ", yes that's true, but why don't we take care of the easiest problem to fix, than deal with the hardest ones. It makes no sense to ignore the problem, people will die. 6. Con: " Nor does it take away the fact that a radical Muslim did a major mass-shooting " he says " According to INVESTIGATIONS and EVIDENCES- "No, IT WAS NOT", does he mean the conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theories? We already covered that if so. 7. Con:" He than talks about how banning Muslims will make them lost their jobs, this is true but I don't want more mass shootings happening. " , he responds with " In 2016, there have been 75 SHOOTINGS in U.S.A by NON MUSLIMs and only 1 by MUSLIM ", yet again he makes a argument out of the conspiracy THEORY. Also this is in America and is not including the ones in 2015, like I said in general there were 10125(2016) killed, and they are starting to come here. He also continues with the argument there are worse than radical muslims, I already made a argument about this. Also the majority group is harder to deal with, than the minority group. And yes the mass shootings won't stop, but how about we have less mass shootings? Con:" And you cannot just trouble the innocent 100,000 , who every year come to U.S.A. for work purposes and Muslim residents of America just because MUSLIM RADICALS have killed 37 Americans. " First of all, mass shootings and attacks are still happening because of radical muslims, so I perfer to protect America and it's people. I'd rather not have people being killed in the exchange for 100,000 people to come to America to be happy. Also that's a conspiracy THEORY that I already argued against. Orlando did happen. " YOU should NOT STOP something BAD by doing other bad thing. " Would you rather stop Muslims from coming to one of the third world countries they have acess to to save American lives? Or do the opposite. He than ask what will be said to the people, he supposes " Well, we have now managed to stop the RADICAL MUSLIMs who would have supposedly entered U.S.A and caused harm to maybe 5 or 6 people " That is a great under exaggeration, Orlando Shooting killed 50 and hey Paris Shooting killed 128, which was way more than Orlando. Con says" MUSLIMs have killed only 37 Americans since 9-11 attack", voter we both know this is false, let me state again it was a conspiracy THEORY not fact! He than says doing this will destroy the 3.3 million muslims living here, that's false. Because we are banning them from coming in, not kicking them out. Con says it's wrong to target a small crime and create a bigger crime. FIrst of all it's not on a tiny scale, we're saving life on a HUGE scale, like I said they are killing many people and are starting to come here, about 10125(2016) there are still other third world countries they have access to. But Americans will die if radicals come here. 8. CON says muslims could easily sneak in. We'll probably just judge if they came from the middle east or where ISIS and Islam is highly practiced. So there you go. 9. Con talks about the argument about the defense, and says America has mass shootings. first of all that's inside America, we were talking about missles hitting America from ISIS. We were talking about border and missle defense. CON ask why did the U.S not defeat ISIS yet. In my opinion it could be because it's their land so they know it better and they are supported, or it could also be the fact we don't know whose a ISIS member or supporter. CON says that millitary budget is dying and defense is weakening. Part of Trump's plan is to rebuild America's millitary defense. 10. Con says ISIS could fire a powerful missles and can't defend against it. I don't think ISIS has a powerful missle to reach us. I already talked about the millitary fix. 11. Con says he was talking about the Americans already in Islamic state. Yes I know, but just because they decided to go to islamic states doesn't mean we should allow Americans to be killed. 12. Pro calls me a hypocrite for saying they are radical muslims for attacking one person for someone else's action.There's a difference, we're not blaming the 1.6 billion muslims for the attacks. I never said every muslim was responsible for a terroist attack. 13. Con says banning muslims is bad encomnic and political wise, plus we could always increase security. I'm sure we can have 100,000 muslims not come in and still have a decent ecnomy unless CON proves wrong, it's not that easy as just increasing security radical muslim attacks were done unexpected, you don't know who's a ISIS supporter. 15. Con says this could hurt peace process and there are other ways like security and target other sources. What peace progress that we were having with Muslims, please explain further. 16. Con says there are morales and Muslims contributed to society. Just because Muslims contributed to America and there are morales doesn't mean we should allow radicals to come in and kill people. 17. Con says that 5 muslims were noble peace winners. We still have radicals coming in and killing people, we shouldn't allow them to do so just because some muslims have Nobel Peace Prize. Vote PRO, Con's arguments in my views mostly comparing one terroist to a other, emotional arguments, and conspiracy theories. SOURCES: http://www.pewresearch.org... http://www.pewforum.org... http://www.militarytimes.com... http://www.forbes.com... https://www.thereligionofpeace.com... https://www.thereligionofpeace.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...