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

I had a somewhat difficult time combing through the opponent's argument, as it seems largely like some sort of ill-conceived political tirade against liberals and Muslims. However, I'll pick out the parts that are relevant to this debate, then cover them in the order provided.Political Correctness is incompatible with recognizing Muslims exist in the U.S.This seems to be the first point being made. The opponent compares "liberals" to The Emperor's New Clothes, saying that they pretend that Muslims don't exist all in the name of being politically correct. Not only does the opponent's evidence not include any relevant facts regarding liberals beliefs, but the notion that liberals are ignoring Muslims runs counter to logic. Of course everyone is aware that Muslims exist in the U.S. Now the opponent may be actually saying "liberals ignore the fact that Muslims are a threat", which I have already demonstrated to be false. [Refer to R1]The opponent makes a generalization of political correctness based upon his perception of what that is. He has no real evidence to support the idea that generally, political correctness relates to his resolution, or is even a bad thing. Should we respect the religion of Islam?The opponent, in R1, rather explicitly implied that we should remove Muslims from the general population. This is part of the resolution we are arguing. Next my opponent quotes a passage from the Koran, then makes the generalization that all Muslims are prone to this behavior. If we look at the passage, it actually differs quite susbstantially from what the opponent paraphrased: 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. Once we see the actual verses, it's not so obvious that this is a violent religion. v191 states that you should slay those who are fighting you and retaliate when you have been attacked. You, however, should not fight in a Mosque unless someone fights you there. v192 clearly states that if they should stop fighting you, you are not to attack any longer. v193 states that you should fight against oppression until there is no more oppression left, but [again] do not be hostile toward those who are not fighting you. This looks susiciously like self defense here in the U.S. If you are attacked, you can retaliate, except when it is clear the perpatrator is no longer aggressive toward you. This passage is not indicative of a violent religion, but rather a relgion that supports the idea that you have to fight to protect yourself, but have enough wisdom to know when to stop fighting. Beyond that, how you practice your religion largely depends upon how you interpret your religion. Muslim Extremists interpretted the Koran to be a violent one, so they are violent. Many Christians have interpretted the Bible to be a violent one, so they were violent. [See The Crusades]. We cannot justify rounding up Muslims and putting them in a camp because of the possibility that they are violent, when in reality everyone has the potential to be violent and Muslims are no more likely. Note from R1, my statistics regarding how many Muslims are the reason for domestic terrorism (6%). ConclusionMy opponent mostly offers a political diatribe with an extreme goal, while offering little supporting evidence along the way. What is most ironic here is the fact that he wants to round up Muslims and place them in a camp because he believes they could be extremremists -- when in fact the only extremism to be found here is in the opponent's plan itself. I have provided evidence showing that camping Muslims would be a grave injustice based upon the Constitution, that Muslims are rarely at fault for domestic terrorism, and that because of this camping Muslims would have no significant effect upon local terrorism. (Unless you consider the anger many might feel at this injustice, sparking new terror.)