President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

I'll provide defenses from my opponent's rebuttals in the same fashion I have thus far 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.Actually, this isn't how things are decided to have bias or to be factually accurate by mediabiasfactcheck. There are polls that anyone can answer, yes, but because of the things you mentioned, this is why these polls don't determine whether they are biased. Surprisingly, you'll find some respondants on the poll asking how biased MSBC is, some will say they aren't biased, and some even responded saying they have a right-wing bias, when anyone who is reasonable will recognize they have a left bias. To find out how mediabiasfactcheck determines whether a media source is biased or not, there is a formula for this which they provide in this article[7]. Now, looking at the source you provided that argues politifact is liberally biased, they don't exactly show a well-defined way in which they measure bias. Looking at several of the examples they gave of politifact's supposed bias, it seems like only conservatives would conclude these were biased, because they pander to conservative views as well. Mediabiasfactcheck presented how it determines whether a media source is biased, whereas this source does not. Mediabiasfactcheck's means of determining how a source is biased seems reliable, and I don't know of any reason to trust the source my opponent offered. They didn't offer a reason why to trust that source either. Thus, I believe the source I provided talking about politifact's bias being one of the "least biased" sources is accurate.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).Again, my opponent used a source that doesn't suggest what they said, and actually suggest the opposite. The wikipedia source states about the San Bernardino attacker "According to sources, Farook had a "troubled childhood" and grew up in an "abusive" home in which his father was often violent towards his mother.Farook grew up in Riverside, California , and attended La Sierra High school, graduating in 2004, one year early"Then CNN, their other source states that there have been no terror attacks committed by refugees from the countries banned. It's true these are terrorists from other countries originally, but none of them are from the targeted countries banned. Why should these countries be banned, and not the ones which were actually involved in the terrorist attacks mentioned in the CNN article?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 why I'm wondering why Trump didn't ban the countries of origin where the terrorists in the other cases you listed above came from. This ban didn't make any sense to institute on the countries he chose. No terrorist attacks came from thsoe countries, but plenty have come from other countries. You pointed that out yourself.Our vetting system is flawed. As I said, if you read the 9/11 commission report, you can very easily see these flaws. (4) That's a 585 page report. There's no way to verify that one can easily see the flaws in the vetting system within the amount of time this debate is going on. I only have 3 days for this debate. If you already know about the flaws, and are familiar with the commission report, you should have mentioned at least the pages that indicate we have flaws. Even if it does indicate we have flaws, this is an old document. And as the source I provided pointed out, our vetting system is constantly changing, and so these flaws may not even be relevant today.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.Yet you didn't name a specific instance where this happened or showed a source stating this is what happens. This needs evidence to support that we let people in on accident. 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.Using that logic, then the logical thing to do would be to ban the countries which produced the most terrorists that harm Americans. Saudi Arabia is one of them. Syria is not one of them. 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.Well, if they could easily do that, then what is this ban even accomplishing? What stops a terrorist doing that? Seems to me that you just proved that the ban does nothing in reality because people could just do this instead. So, why keep the ban if it does nothing in reality?Sources:[7] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...