Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the room

Before we begin, I'd like to go through the opponent's opening statements and make it clear exactly what he is arguing for, for the benefit of clarity and for the benefit of the voters. I'll list off his arguments as a variety of contentions, that way they are already correctly paritioned for my rebuttal.1. Political correctness, multiculturalism and liberal thought gloss over and/or deny "the elephant in the room".2. Said elephant refers to Muslims who currently reside in the United States.3. 'Not all Muslims are terrorist [sic], but all terrorists are Muslims.'4. We should follow our historical example relating to the US japanese internment camps and remove Muslims from the general population in a similar manner. (Based upon his implications and final statment, in which he claims that the "elephant" must be removed.I'll be addressing each of these points in the order presented. Following that, I will present my own case as to why removing all/the majority of Muslims from the general population in America is a patently bad idea. Finally, I will make some closing remarks. Opponent's Arguments1. Political correctness, multiculturalism and liberal thought deny/gloss over the existence of Muslims in this country. The opponent does not present any evidence backing up this claim. Barring that, the traits that the opponent mentions all, to varying degrees, concern the idea of being respectful and mindful of the beliefs and customs of other people and other cultures. Looking at each of these ideas, we can more clearly see how the opponent's assertion does not follow.Political correctness is defined as the avoidance of forms of expression or action that marginalizes or discriminates against some category of people, often categories of people already marginalized or descriminated against in the status quo. For instance, it is not politically correct to use the n-word. It is politically correct to say "African American" and in many cases, "black". When one uses political correctness, they are recognizing the existence of other groups and the types of language and words that offend them. Someone who is politically correct is more likely to be aware of the large number of Muslims in the US.Multiculturalism refers to the coexistence of diverse cultures, where such differences include race, religion, beliefs, etc. A multicultural person is by definition more likely to be aware of Muslims in the US.Finally, liberal ideology heavily supports the previous two ideas. One of the principles of liberalism is that we should not marginalize people based upon factors that present no danger to us. So again, a liberal is more likely to see the "elephant" in the room.2. The elephant in the room refers to Muslims in the US.This really isn't an argument, more just a point that the opponent implied that I wanted to make concrete. When he refers to the "elephant in the room", he is referring to Muslims living inside the United States. 3. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.This blatently false statement is what urged me to take this debate. The first part of this claim is technically correct, but the second couldn't be further from the truth. Between 1980 and 2005, a mere 6% of all domestic terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims. [1] 42% of these attacks were committed by Latino-related groups, followed by 24% committed by extreme left-wing terrorists. To claim that "all terrorists" are Muslim is an example of a politically incorrect statement. It's politically incorrect because it makes a negative assumption about a category of people based upon a few outliers and because it's literally incorrect. Second, the first part of the claim is that "not all Muslims are terrorists", but the opponent doesn't seem to realize just how few Muslims are terrorist. According to a head researcher at the RAND institute [2], an estimated 325,000 Muslims are already radicalized or have a strong potential to become radicalized. Compare this to the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, and you get the statistic that only 0.02% of Muslims are radical. (Additionally, not all radical Muslims take radical actions, so the number of actual terrorists is less. So to restate the opponent's claim in a more accurate way:"Only a fifth of a percent of Muslims are terrorists and only 6% of terrorists are Muslim."4. We should remove American Muslims from society. This is a very bad idea for the following reasons:A) Only 1 in 5,000 Muslims are expected to be radicalized (the maximum possible chance). This means that you would be punishing 4,999 people for the crimes that 1 person has yet to even committ. Not only does this violate the Constitution in more ways than I care to list, but it's just a bad strategy. If you decided that you did want to go ahead and violate the Constitution, it would be much more beneficial to lock up all gang affiliated Latinos or all extremist white liberals.B) Violation of the ConstitutionSpeaking of the Constitution, I think I will discuss how this proposed plan of action violates the very fundemental nature of this document -- the one upon which the basis of our country is founded. The first issue comes with the 6th Ammendment, which guarentees all accused the right to a fair trial. Locking up the 12 million US Muslims without said trial is directly against the 6th Ammendment. If you are under the impression that the Constitution somehow does not apply to US Muslims, I'll refer you to the 14th Ammendment, which clearly guarentees all US citizens the protections of the Constitution.My ArgumentMy argument will actually consist of only a single point, as the above rebuttal strongly implies many points by the very nature of the rebuttals themselves. My point has to do with democracy.It is known that the United States was created to be and still is an indirect democracy. A democracy is unique from other forms of government in that the behavior of the government is meant to directly be influenced by the will of the people. It's the will of the people and their choice to be part of the democratic process that preserves the democracy. If we were to imprison a large portion of the population (Muslims) we would be unjustly removing people from the democratic process. This means that minority would no longer be allowed to vote, directly removing their ability to influence the direction of the country. Such an action would create a US government that can no longer be considered a true democracy, as well-minded people have been systematically eliminated from participating and voicing their opinion. It cannot be said that one person's opinion on how the country should be run is any more or less valuable than another's. While that opinion may be technically incorrect or just a bad idea, it is still just as valuable because it is an imperative part of the democratic process.By eliminating this minority from the process, you open up the potential for future legal abuses. For instance, if one can justify removing all Muslims, then it's not ridiculous to think one could justify removing all people who are not Christians (17% of the population.) Then, the remaining vote-capable citizens could easily justify removing more and more minorities, until only a small group of powerful people are left. This is aristocracy, a near opposite of democracy. Clearly, this cannot be allowed, indicating that the opponent's proposed action should also not be allowed. Closing StatementsThe opponent presented an argument unsupported by evidence or logic. Instead, he used discriminatory assertions to propose an unrealistic idea that would have little to no affect on terrorism in the United States or elsewhere.Sources:(1) - http://www.thedailybeast.com...;(2) - http://www.csmonitor.com...;