President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

Quotes from my opponent will be in italics, and I will respond accordingly. We, as the public, do not have all the information about immigrants who have conducted or were planning Well, you can't blame me for taking the position I did since that information is not yet given to us. Since we don't know about terrorist attacks committed by immigrants, or if they happen to a greater degree than non-immigrant terrorist attacks, then it doesn't yet make sense to ban them from entering the country. Once we have this information, and if it turns out that the immigrants from these countries make up a significant percentage of terrorist attacks performed in the United States, then I would agree with you on this topic. Until then, I have to oppose it. Now, in regards to the one that happened against Ohio State University, this was an immigrant from Somalia. This would be grounds to ban immigrants from Somalia, what about the other 6 countries he banned? I also wouldn't say one immigrant terrorist attack is enough justification to ban an entire country from immigrating here. I think there needs to be a significant amount of terrorist attacks that are performed by a country before we ban them. I will put it at a low percent, let's say 5% of our terrorist attacks. If 5% of terrorist attacks performed against the US come from Somalia, I would consider this grounds to ban them from coming to the country until we make our vetting system stricter. However, just one terrorist attack, I think, isn't reason to ban the entire country.We do have proof that our vetting process is flawed (3)Your third source doesn't talk about that, I think you meant to cite your second source. And when you cited source 2 above, I think you meant to cite source 1. Going off of that you meant to cite source 2, this is the National Review. It is known for having extreme right wing bias[2] "They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes." Now, to judge your specific article, let's look at the claims they make in the article. Here is a claim they made: "We know ISIS has already successfully infiltrated the West through the refugee system. And we know from other contexts that our vetting process can be deadly deficient."They provided no source for this information, no study, no facts that can be confirmed. This is all opinion, and thus this source is not a reliable source that you used. I wouldn't take it seriously at all. Now, what polifact had to report on the vetting system is this: "Background checks on refugees seeking to enter the United States are among the most stringent in the world", and they later point out in this article how what a congressman claimed about vetting under Obama being haphazard, to not be true whatsoever. They further explain that there has not been any Syrian fatal terrorist attack since the 1970s[3] It will be tougher to question my source as politifact is rated as one of the least biased news sources out there, and their factual reporting rating is "very high"[4]Why should we not take a period of our time to improve the vetting process to safeguard our citizens?As pointed out, it's one of the most stringent in the world already, and we can make it even harder if you want without banning them. No vetting system will be perfect. There will be people who can get in who might be a threat to Americans. I don't think that the small chance of that happening, though, is reason enough to ban all of the law-abiding refugees who do come here, however. We're potentially saving more lives by accepting many refugees, than we are allowing some to be killed by the small chance of a terrorist coming in. The fact that Saudi Arabia is not on the list only suggests that Saudi Arabia, complies with our required information for vetting (4) - not that there is an alterior motive.I would like to point out that your own source admits, "President Trump's sprawling business interests in Saudia Arabia may have influenced his decision, presenting a possible conflict of interest. "So yes, your own source even suggests there may have been an ulterior motive. Additionally, I didn't see any information in your source talking about how Saudi Arabia complies with our required information for vetting. Anyone who reads the article will also see that is missing, which was what you were citing the article for. I contend, also, that this article is not a good one, not because it's biased or doesn't have factual information, but because it doesn't support what my opponent claimed.At this point, I would urge voters to vote for me for sources, as I've proved my sources are reliable, and shown that my opponent's sources either are very biased, don't have facts to back up the claims in those sources, or when they did have facts, they weren't facts that supported my opponent's points. If my opponent doesn't change this next round and provide good sources that have facts that actually support their claims, it should be clear that voters should vote for me for sources.In addition, the telegraph, which is what I provided in the last round as a source, has a slight right-wing bias, but a high factual reporting rate.[5] Slight bias is better than strong bias. Now, I'm going to go back to points my opponent made in round 1, as I feel I didn't fully address them previously. Quotes will again, be italicized. It's a fact, that Iran sponsors terrorism (1) , which is why the country is on the ban list as well as Sudan, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, and Yemen. All countries that since 1979, have been state-sponsors of terrorism. (2)I'll give you the fact that these states sponsor terrorism(or, are at least classified as states sponsoring terrorism by the US), though I would argue the US does in a way too, but that's besides the point. At any rate, the governments sponsoring terrorism has no bearing on how the people of that country will be like, especially since those countries are not exactly democratic and representative of their people. You can see that on this world democracy index that all of those countries are ranked pretty poorly in terms of being democratic[6]. Thus what the states do is not representative of what their people want. Why should the people be punished in those countries for what their governments are doing? It doesn't make sense to do that. It would make more sense to punish their government in some way, not the people of those countries.Sources:[2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...[3] http://www.politifact.com...[4] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...[5] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...