President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

First off, I would love to address that I used, according to my opponents sources, biased sources, but so did he. Politifact.com has a liberal bias (1), and yes, maybe some of my sources were biased, but your sources have some bias to them and I know you addressed this but I think I should just make it a tad bit clearer. Also, mediabiasfactcheck.com has a possibility to be prejudice as well seeing as how anyone can go on that website, and vote how they feel which can be very biased based on whether or not they like the articles they put out. the owner, and/or the party the voter affiliates with. Say I hate CNN (and I do) and I'm a Democrat. I could go on that website, look up CNN, and tell everyone that they have an Extreme Right Wing bias. I could hate Anderson Cooper, and just vote that since he's affiliated with the opposite party, CNN must be that party. Either way, my biased source, nationalreview.com, had a high factual rating, despite the bias it has. Second of all, there have been several more terrorist attacks other than the Ohio State University, committed by immigrants, the San Bernardino attack (2 & 3), New York and New Jersey explosions (3), Boston Marathon bombings (3), and 9/11 (3). The countries that they were from may not be on the ban list, but the one's we are banning SPONSOR TERRORISM. Iran. Yemen, Sudan and the four others SUPPORT TERRORISM. Now, you said that if one terrorist attack has the perpetrator originating from Somalia, that we shouldn't ban the whole country. But ONE terrorist attack, IS ONE TOO MANY. No terrorist attacks should happen anywhere period. Which is the main reason this ban exists. To try and crack down on terrorist attacks on US soil. By the way, we did not ban Somalia from entering this country, but you probably already know that and that's because only one terrorist has come from there that has attacked on US grounds. Our vetting system is flawed. As I said, if you read the 9/11 commission report, you can very easily see these flaws. (4) There have been cases where we vetted someone, they were rejected, and we let them in on accident. All a terrorist organization, such as ISIS, has to do is put a terrorist through the vetting process, memorize the questions, come back to the HQ, study the questions, come back to the interview with another terrorist, and they're in. I don't about my opponent, but this seems flawed to me. On the vetting system being stringent, I do have to agree, it's a very tedious process (5), that many people have to go through in order to come here, but the Middle East has the highest percentage of terrorists and terrorist organizations in the world. We have to ban some of those countries, or more terrorists will keep pouring into this great country. You state that the countries being banned are ranked low on the world democratic government scale, and that they're people don't have too much of a voice. I do have to agree with this again, they don't hold free and fair elections to elect people such as a president, but instead they have dictators and emperors (a little exaggeration with emperors). You did say in both rounds that the people shouldn't be punished for their governments, but there is nothing stopping them from driving to a US controlled area or UN controlled area, and flying to America after being vetted of course, or coming in as a refugee. Sources: (1) http://www.politifactbias.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.cnn.com... (4) http://avalon.law.yale.edu... (5) https://www.nytimes.com...