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

Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsMy opponent had created a tiresome chain of topic dodging and goes out of the question to "what the government has done that is questionable". What the governments did that was questionable varies from European austerity measures [1] to the French burqa ban [2]. These government don't have the choice or resources to deport the mass exodus of people flooding their borders, I said that in my first arguments and you didn't refute it, you actually agreed to it as you did now. However, they shouldn't treat these people like prisoners or second class simply because they are refugees, as human beings, they deserve morality and respect, you wouldn't just give them bread rations. My opponent still did not provide much evidence regarding it is the representation of all the refugees that they are "ungratefully" receiving allowances, others are grateful to their providers. My opponent thinks I made an assertion his sources had an anti-Islamic agenda and I'm not going through the foolish repetition that I proved every single argument prior to this one. My opponent's videos do not show the riots as a link to a unified attempt to institute a European Islamic State as he claims, if you are only counting the rioting videos and not the conspiracy theories. Evidently, my opponent has not been able to refute my solidifed claims and cognitive dissonance seems apparent. My opponents next arguments regarding the crime waves which the violence cannot be refuted but proven irrelevant to the argument considering the US has full control of all those who enter. The small percentage of people who cause these damages forced their way into the gates of Europe and my opponent did agree Europe was not prepared to accept them or deport them. This argument can be rendered null considering it overlooks the entire variable that the United States is in control of the situation. As for the 19 terrorists, they received outside funding and years of dedicated planning [3], Europe's recent deadliest attacks were mostly homegrown converts [4] and your argument of the FBI still overlooks my argument considering DHS fiscal allocation. I used the words "could be" in your quote because the riots don't show your assertion of a fundamentalist society, either as Europe has been subject to many protests as I previously mentioned. The quote my opponent uses regarding "the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed to policy makers" literally proves my point the USFG was in charge of all information released to any media. You submitted that argument to my point. My opponent still hasn't provided the argument that independent journalists were the ones that uncovered the distortion of events and he hasn't proven that mainstream media is untrustworthy. My opponent points out that regulations doesn't guarantee stopping corruption or distortion but it at least shows what was edited and that evidence was violated to show a certain aspect of the truth compared to independent journalists who aren't monitored and work only for themselves (Refer to Round 3 & 4 Arguments). As for Dan Rather, what he said and your sources applied only to the news station he worked for and the experiences he felt. CBS does not represent the entirety of mainstream media [5] and their problems are their own. My opponent says his drug examples still apply to his statements but fails to back it up. If my opponent stating Comey was speaking of anyone coming from Syria, then his argument is irrelevant because it can't (And I proved it wouldn't) apply to the standard set by the USFG (Refer to Round 3 & 4 Arguments). Syria is still a state and their previous police state tendencies forces them to make their own background checks and documents which for travel purposes is easily provided to other nations [6]. My opponent's quotations still don't match up with the un-refutable variable the USFG an deny asylum to anyone whose background they can't access due to complete control over the immigration from the Middle East. People we don't want here that could slip through cracks wouldn't slip through them by the asylum standard if you are implying such. If they come under VISA's that is a different argument because that would no longer give them a refugee status. The fact that the topic of the argument states taking in thousands of refugees which the US has the complete resources of time and finances to monitor does not align with your 9/11 argument which I previously stumped. If radicals are homegrown like my opponent states, they aren't refugees and are therefore a different argument entirely. Thanks to my opponent for this argument. If I appeared to have been too curt or rough in my debates on any manner, my apologies. I like to get my points across strong. Sources[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.cnn.com...[4] . http://www.bbc.com...[5] . http://www.cbs.com...[6] . http://www.bbc.com...