The Instigator
Mharman
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Ban on Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 342 times Debate No: 96638
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Mharman

Con

Round 1: Greeting and acceptance of challenge.
Rounds 2-4: Debating.
Round 5: Farewells and thanks.

I will be debating against a ban on Islam.
vi_spex

Pro

ok yes

terrorism should be banned
Debate Round No. 1
Mharman

Con

It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to ban Islam. I am not Islam myself, but they have their rights. Also terrorism is a criminal charge that is banned. Islam does not automatically mean terrorism. Not all Muslims are bad, I know some.
vi_spex

Pro

muslims follow the koran.. all muslims are terrorists, the one in the background laughing or doing nothing while your wife gets stabbed in the genitles, are equally as much a terrorist


the problem is people are in denial about it being terrorism.. so they accept it, and pay to get have their families torn apart

Debate Round No. 2
Mharman

Con

The Quran does allow honor killing, but most choose not to do it, because most have morals. If they were to choose honor killing, the police and military will do everything they can. Plus, you cannot force a conversion. The beliefs are in the heart.
vi_spex

Pro

so supporting islam is terrorism

Debate Round No. 3
Mharman

Con

No. That's not what I said. First, I take back what I said about the Quran allowing honor killing. There are actually multiple versions of the Quran depending on the different types of Islam. There is Sunni, Shi'ite, and several other types of Islam. I'm convinced that most types of Islam do not allow honor killing, but only the very small types of Islam are the ones you need to worry about. ISIS, for example, is one of those extremist groups.
vi_spex

Pro

you are talking out of your behind... every backwards psyhotic thing you can think of islam does allow it
Debate Round No. 4
Mharman

Con

I was wondering when you would go straight to insults. Let me repeat what I said. Some versions of Islam want honor killing, but most do not. There is a word in Islam called "Jihad." Jihad means "struggle", as in the spiritual struggle between good and evil in Islam. They see it as an inner war. However, extremists use this as a lousy excuse to be terrorists. Trust me, I have a real life friend who is Muslim. To assume that all Muslims are terrorists, would be like assuming all Christians are anti-vaxxers, or assuming that all buddhists are in favor of ethnic cleansing.
vi_spex

Pro

insulting terrorits is good.. so is killing them
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: warren42// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro made this a troll debate. Conduct Con for this. Pro made no arguments, Con did, inherently giving arguments to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] The arguments of the opposition on a given debate don't automatically make that debate a troll debate, and the voter is still required to explain each point awarded to sufficiency. Trolling on a debate that was intended to be serious may be sufficient reason to award conduct, but the voter is still required to specifically assess the arguments of both debaters. Merely stating that one side didn't provide arguments is not enough to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm saying that their explanation doesn't meet the standards. They're welcome to vote again, either omitting the point or explaining how his S&G impeded the reading of his argument.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
facts argue for themselves.. it is impossible to argue with facts, islam IS terrorism.. to prove otherwise is therfore impossible
Posted by Mharman 1 month ago
Mharman
Whiteflame, just look at his arguments. They were right about S&G.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DebaterGood// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro because Pro said to kill all Muslims. That is not debate, that is a threat. Pro had so many grammar mistakes, it took the seriousness out of his argument. Sources tied since both used none. Arguments to con because he mentioned the constitutional aspect of this debate, which was a great point. Pro responded by attacking his opponent. Easy win for Con.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless a debater uses such poor S&G that their argument is difficult to understand, this point may not be awarded.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Overnight // Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con wins conduct because Pro advocated for genocide, CLEARLY not part of this debate. S/G goes to Con because Pro didn't use capitalization, end punctuation, etc. It really took away from his argument. Con wins arguments because he mentioned the Constitutional aspect of this debate, which was really strong. Pro did not challenge this point, therefore ceding that point. Pro simply stated that all Muslims are terrorists. That is not an argument. That is semantics. Sources are tied, since none were used in this debate.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless a debater uses such poor S&G that their argument is difficult to understand, this point may not be awarded.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
according to votes
Posted by Mharman 1 month ago
Mharman
This is a thrashing so far.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
pandas are always cute
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
thats why i use it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Overnight 4 weeks ago
Overnight
Mharmanvi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins conduct because Pro advocated for genocide, CLEARLY not part of this debate. S/G goes to Con because Pro's bad grammar made it so hard to actually understand the point of view Pro held, since it was only fragments of sentences. The punctuation was terrible also, so there was confusion where I didn't know when Pro finished the argument. It really took away from his argument. Con wins arguments because he mentioned the Constitutional aspect of this debate, which was really strong. Pro did not challenge this point, therefore ceding that point. Pro simply stated that all Muslims are terrorists. That is not an argument. That is semantics. Sources are tied, since none were used in this debate.