CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Necessary measure to protect American citizens from more Islamic terrorists attacks. The temporary halt, is needed to prevent more terrorists from coming here and killing more Americans, while while we strengthen our visa and immigration screening process. Messy, yes. Inconvenient, yes. Unusual, yes. If just one innocent American is prevented from being blown up, or hacked to death, the measure is justified.
Every batch of Muslim immigrants will contain a % of dedicated terrorists with a further additional % who will be radicalized and become terrorists.
None of the original immigrants who settled here were from countries hostile the United States which they regarded as their new home and a place where they could prosper, which they did and in the process added positively to America's greatness..
Through their hard work and skills they helped to make America a great nation to which they were all proud to belong.
The idea of willfully causing death and destruction to their host nation which welcomed them and offered them freedom of religious and political expression was never considered.
Not so the Muslims.
One of the Muslim terrorists involved in the slaughter of 130 young clubbers in Paris had been accepted into France at the age of 5 years old.
The multiple Muslim terrorist attacks in Germany in 2016 saw 12 dead with hundreds injured were carried out by a number of asylum seekers who had recently availed of Angela Merkel's open door policy.
The Muslim terrorist attack on Boston where three people were killed and 264 people with serious injuries including those who needed leg amputations.
The fools and filth bellow out their standard sanctimonious drivel about ''all Muslims are not terrorists''.
Everyone, including the dogs in the street know that, but it only takes one Muslim terrorist to cause death on an industrial scale.
It was a lone Muslim terrorist who drove a truck into the family vacationers on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice France where 183 innocent men, women and children were massacred.
Did the atrocity of San Bernardino where 12 U.S. citizens were shot dead, not learned anything?
the 'bleeding hearts'
Any politician who promotes and permits the intake of Muslim immigrants, of any age should be tried for willful criminal negligence, if not treason.
"It's wrong to ban Muslims", "Why those countries and not Saudi Arabia?"
You are correct, that would be wrong to do. The goal however is to temporarily stop immigration from just 7 specific countries listed by the State department as either sponsors or safe havens of terrorists. Muslims from other countries are free to follow our immigration laws and enter.
"Terrorists can find other ways to enter", "This won't stop them"
You are correct. This is not the perfect solution, but doing nothing would be a far worse solution. I see this quite often on the liberal side: "since it won't necessarily work 100% why try at all?"
"This ban leaves many trying to flee there country without a place to go"
I don't care. Until we have a process that can better vet those entering the country, I will not support accepting refugees at the cost of putting my family at greater risk.
"Rather than a ban, why not just improve security?"
By what metric is it not working? The number of deaths caused by terrorist attacks since 9/11 is incredibly small, particularly when compared to things such as domestic murder and traffic accidents, which get a far smaller amount of attention. Considering its impossible to get rid of all terrorism, and the number of deaths from terrorism since 9/11 lies at about 100 ("about" because that includes non Islamic terrorism and since instances where the terror aspect is questionable) over the past 15 years, I'd say things are going quite well, particularly when compared to the historical rate of terrorist deaths in the U.S. pre 9/11.
Edit: and if you aren't implying that we are doing nothing, why did you claim that the ban is better than doing nothing, and that some liberals suggest doing nothing?
I'm curious where you get your facts. Prior to 9/11 there had been 237 deaths due to Islamic terrorism; 217 of which from the Egypt Air crash in the Atlantic off Nantucket. Since 9/11 we have had 145 attacks specifically from Islamic terrorism. So let's get this straight, from the first attack in 1972 to 9/11 we averaged 8.2 deaths/year. Post 9/11 we've averaged 9.7 deaths/year. So after a horrific event in 2001 that stats have gotten worse.
Considering its impossible to get rid of all terrorism
Once again another person suggesting we not improve our process since we can't get rid of it 100%.
and if you aren't implying that we are doing nothing, why did you claim that the ban is better than doing nothing, and that some liberals suggest doing nothing?
FFS, by nothing I mean a ban is better than doing nothing to improve our current vetting process. Dammit, I didn't realize that would so hard to understand.
Since 9/11 we have had 145 attacks specifically from Islamic terrorism. So let's get this straight, from the first attack in 1972 to 9/11 we averaged 8.2 deaths/year. Post 9/11 we've averaged 9.7 deaths/year. So after a horrific event in 2001 that stats have gotten worse.
Measuring it that way doesn't make sense in the context of this conversation, as we are determining the efficacy of counter terrorism policies as well as their need. Considering the enacted measures post 9/11, it makes more sense to judge the number of terrorist attacks (of all kinds) on U.S. soil after 9/11, and to compare deaths with deaths and attacks with attacks.
I'll direct you here, though if you want a more summarized format, you can look here.
I still don't understand why the United States disproportionately worries about terrorism, considering we deal with far less of it than A. we have in our past, B. most other parts of the world, and C. just about every other primary cause of death.
Once again another person suggesting we not improve our process since we can't get rid of it 100%.
I don't understand. At no point did I say we should not improve "our process", nor did I claim "our process" could not be improved. Can you please explain to me what led you to make this comment?
FFS, by nothing I mean a ban is better than doing nothing to improve our current vetting process. Dammit, I didn't realize that would so hard to understand.
You should say what you actually mean to convey, then. Do not blame others for taking your words at face value, considering you are communicating via text that precludes any usage of non-verbal communication that would otherwise be used to understand nuance and hyperbole.
If you said "do nothing", people will think you meant "do nothing". Don't get angry at them for that, just take steps to ensure you are explicitly clear with how you craft your message.
Measuring it that way doesn't make sense in the context of this conversation
Considering the conversation is regarding a ban and what needs to be done to reduce our risk of such attacks, it does make sense to measure it in this manner.
I still don't understand why the United States disproportionately worries about terrorism, considering we deal with far less of it than A. we have in our past,
We don't. As I stated prior to 9/11 it was 8.2/year and now 9.7/year...that's more; simple arithmetic.
B. most other parts of the world
So because other places are worse we should just ignore it?
and C. just about every other primary cause of death.
We are also concerned with other causes, and fortunately we as a species have evolved with the ability to worry about multiple things at once. Many of the other causes of death are also not so simple to find a solution for.
Can you please explain to me what led you to make this comment?
You continue to provide more reasons that lead me to make that comment. By suggesting that since we have other problems we shouldn't focus on this issue implies just that. Because people also die from anything from gun violence to obesity we should just ignore the immigration problems?
You should say what you actually mean to convey, then.
The premise of this debate is whether the travel ban is a solution or hindrance. Without more to go on, some assumptions must be made. What is the stated purpose for this ban? To stop all immigration from the listed 7 countries for 90 days to establish a better vetting process. The question asked was, is it a solution? A solution to what? Our vetting process. This implies there already is a system in place so to suggest that my saying "nothing" is to mean have no process at all, does not fit this conversation. In fact if I were suggesting that liberals wanted to do nothing at all, this would imply a change - or doing "something" - as we currently have a process in place. (should I not take your words at face value either?)
If you said "do nothing", people will think you meant "do nothing". Don't get angry at them for that...
Not people, just you, and I only get angry that some people have a hard time reading words with the proper, expressed context.
BTW, Dermot, if you happen to see this, this is exactly why I was stressing definitions in your other debate
ISIL LOVED IT! It added to the hatred of those on the border ...( NOT THAT BORDER !), those who were close to hating America! Iran asked their people NOT to burn our flag during yesterdays celebration where they do it YEARLY! Thank the anti-Trump demonstrators for THAT!
Now we hear that Trump the bump grabber may be naming Sarah Palin "Ambassador" to Canada! Another great ally down the drain!
"ISIL LOVED IT! It added to the hatred of those on the border" AL of Road Island you are the Infidel and you should learn that and by the way Iran is not place you would want to visit on a vacation !
Finally, you said something I can agree with. I would NOT vacation in Iran. (But I don't feel I have to carry a gun to vacation in America. But, another year of Trump and a runaway NRA, I might have to ... to protect myself from radical (conservative) Americans. Liberal Americans own a LOT of guns. Somehow they don't worry me.
It takes a special kind of terrorist organization to force the world’s most powerful and professional military into action halfway around the globe. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, ISIS or simply the Islamic State) is exactly this type of organization: strong enough to rout several divisions of a national army, and rich enough to sustain their operations at an impressive pace.
Estimated by the Central Intelligence Agency to have a size of 31,000 fighters, ISIL has single-handedly swept across an area of the Middle East roughly the size of Belgium. The swift and easy capture of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, by several thousand ISIL fighters in June 2014 had the effect of not only embarrassing the Iraqi government in the eyes of its people, but revealing how poorly led and pathetic the Iraqi security forces had become.
First, I would like to state that everyone should be treated equally regardless what religion,culture,ethnicity or races. This is the fundamental right that everyone should has. The travel ban that imposed by president Trump will just causing more disunity and chaos among the American. President Trump had ban 5 Islamic countries citizens which is Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.President Trumph publicly condone the Muslim group as terrorist which is significantly very wrong. We shouldn't stereotyping Muslim as terrorist just merely based on the act of ISIS. We should know that ISIS is not believing the correct teaching of Islam. ISIS was astray from the true teaching of Islam. In Myanmar,it is a country that practice BUddhism, but why their authority still treating cruelly to the mminority group of Rohingya ? We should not stereotype Muslim as Terrorist, as in fact, ISIS is terrorist. Every religion emphasise on peace,Islam is not excluded too.
Secondly,Trump's travel Ban brought troublesome and worry to family members from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen that wanted to visit their love ones. Just for example, weeks ago, An Iranian parents could not visit and accompany their baby that undergone a surgery. This is so heart breaking for parents who cannot accompany their love ones , when their love ones was in difficulties or risk of life. Just imagine, let's say if we are Iranian, and one of our family members is in the risk of death,somehow we cannot meet him or her,is this fair for us? we are the family members of love ones but we cannot visit them when they are in midst of hardship. This is so cruel to everyone.
This ban leaves many trying to flee there country without a place to go. Also if your going to assume that there is a high possibility for them to be terrorists they could just go to a different country and come to the u.s from there.
America is a country made up of immigrants. If Trumph says American First- it actually means that the indegineous people a.k.a Indians should come first. Get ur history right morons
Also tourism is a big industry and it cannot be forsaken or reduced just because of some terrorists. If you want to keep them out just improve your security
If Trump says American First- it actually means that the indegineous people a.k.a Indians should come first. Get ur history right morons.
It's "America first", not "first Americans". Trump is referring to ALL American citizens. You are miss understanding the message, or intentionally distorting it.
Also tourism is a big industry and it cannot be forsaken or reduced just because of some terrorists. If you want to keep them out just improve your security
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, are NOT sources of significant tourism, but rather terrorism. Keeping them out while we improve our security, is exactly what we're doing.
Are you implying that every single citizen of these 7 countries is a terrorist? That's laughable.
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, are NOT sources of significant tourism, but rather terrorism. Keeping them out while we improve our security, is exactly what we're doing.
No, they are not significant sources of terrorism. Not a single terrorist in the last 17 years has come from any of those countries. More homegrown terrorists have killed people on US soil than terrorists from all 7 of those countries combined.
Kataib Hezbollah, formed in 2006 or 2007, was once known for ambushing U.S. troops during their patrols of Iraqi neighborhoods and for placing armored-piercing IED’s on the roads that U.S. Humvees would use. The killing of U.S. soldiers and the frequent rocket attacks that KH would launch directly into Baghdad’s Green Zone landed the group on the U.S. foreign terrorist organization list in 2009. “KH has threatened the lives of Iraqi politicians and civilians that support the legitimate political process in Iraq,” the State Department noted in its designation. It’s hard to argue that this band of Shia fighters has changed their behavior five years later.
In fact, due to the unpredictable collapse of the Iraqi army, Kataib Hezbollah has only grown more powerful and its name has only increased in relevance.
Here, you are very heavily implying that all of these immigrants are terrorists. Do try to avoid being so transparent.
It's amusing that you clearly haven't even read the report you're citing. Shall I break it down for you?
Not a single one of the 72 people outlined in the report committed an act of terrorism.
11 of the people were convicted for "false statements".
3 were convicted for "neutrality violation".
1 was convicted for "export violation".
1 was convicted for "tampering/obstruction".
2 were convicted for "false declarations in internal revenue matters".
23 were convicted for "material support".
24 were convicted for "conspiracy", as vague as that is.
10 were convicted for "money laundering".
8 were convicted for "counterfeiting".
Only 23 of the convictions mention "terrorism" or "terrorist".
Only 3 mention "explosive".
Only 3 mention "weapon" (two of these used in conjunction with "explosive", so only 1 separate use of "weapon").
The vast majority of these men were aiding terrorists, they were not terrorists themselves. Not a single one took another life.
Yes, they are aiding terrorists, but it is ignorant to ban 7 countries which have caused very minimal security risks compared to other countries which have created even larger risks.
Not to mention that this data borders on irrelevant. I'm going to highlight this in bold to get it into your brainwashed mind. These 72 convictions are from SEVEN COUNTRIES TOTAL over a span of SIXTEEN YEARS. That's roughly 4.5 convictions a year from seven counties, or 0.6 per country per year. Do you understand how pathetic using this report is now? Considering these are relatively radicalised countries, this conviction rate is stunningly low. All this report has served to do is actually support my side that the blanket ban is completely unnecessary.
"Also tourism is a big industry and it cannot be forsaken or reduced just because of some terrorists" "If you want to keep them out just improve your security"
Security is improved with a Travel Ban and you agreed to that ! Tourism is not at stake it's the security of a country and you agreed with the Travel Ban !