The Instigator
DemosthenesWiggin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Banning 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
08days13hours44minutes18seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 231 times Debate No: 96821
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

DemosthenesWiggin

Con

In this debate, I will argue that a ban on Islam, either in America or worldwide, is wrong and should not take place.

Round 1 is acceptance with no arguments.
Round 2 is your arguments with no rebuttals of opponents arguments.
Round 3 is rebuttals/counterclaims and conclusion.
vi_spex

Pro

the only evidence that needs to be provided is to prove islam shouldnt be banned, as all facts argue to the contrary
Debate Round No. 1
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

Islam should not be banned because there are millions of followers of Islam, a ban would lead to World War 3.
vi_spex

Pro

no.. muslims are at war with everyone, world war 3 would mean their end.. a ban would lead to freedom of those who wants to leave it, and prison for those who try to hide their islamic practises, as it should be with terrorism
Debate Round No. 2
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

My opponent's round two arguments contained a number of inaccuracies which will be discussed one by one:

Firstly, my opponent said that "muslims are at war with everyone". This is untrue firstly because the holy book of Islam, the Quran, specifically prohibits violence against the People of the Book, which include Jews and Christians (1). Verse 5:28 of the Quran states that "among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians': because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (2). Additionally, my opponent's statement implied that the majority of Muslims are in favor of violence towards those of other religions. This is also entirely false, as 86% of American Muslims say that suicide bombings and other terrorism tactics are never justifiable (3).

My opponent also said that "world war 3 would mean their end". Although an anti-Islam world war would possibly lead to the temporary elimination of extremist Muslims, the cost in lives of such a war would be staggering. Although currently an extremely low percentage of Muslims are terrorists, in the case of a worldwide ban, many Muslims would rather be martyred than give up their faith, as would happen in other major world religions. As there are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (3), a war against the community of Islam would have disastrous consequences for decades to come. Since one of the reasons in support of a ban on Islam is to reduce violence, this would obviously be extremely counterproductive.

In the argument that "those who try to hide their islamic practises" would receive prison time, my opponent shows one of the reasons against a ban on Islam. That reason is that many Muslims will become crypto-Muslims, one who hides his/her Islamic faith and claims to follow a different faith. This has happened in the past, most notably in the case of the Spanish Inquisition (4). Although some of these crypto-Muslims would be discovered and arrested, it would be impossible to completely eliminate Islam. Additionally, there is the question of the definition of Islam. In addition to becoming crypto-Muslims, some adherents might change the names and practices of Islamic elements. If Islam is legally defined as a religion including the Quran, the prophet Muhammad, or the god Allah, for example, then some crypto-Muslims will simply rename that element of their religion. Should the definition instead focus on Muslim practices, such as praying facing Mecca or fasting during Ramadan, those practices would be changed or eliminating, creating a loophole in the definition of Islam. This demonstrates that a ban on Islam would not be effective, due to crypto-Muslims and the difficulty of defining Islam.

In conclusion, a ban on Islam would not only cause a large war, resulting in the deaths of many innocents, but would also be impossible to enforce. Additionally, banning Islam due to the actions of a extremely small terrorist minority is wrong and goes against the fundamental concept of fairness.

(1) http://www.juancole.com...
(2) http://corpus.quran.com...
(3) http://www.pewresearch.org...
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org...
vi_spex

Pro

well you are utterly insane
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Capitalistslave// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con wins all categories. They had better conduct, as pro resorted to calling con crazy. Con had better spelling and grammar as pro misspelled practice and didn't capitalize in many instances. Con made a more convincing argument, where pro made unsubstantiated claims. Con is the only one who provided sources, so the sources go to them.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Calling one side crazy, unless it's a clear and personal insult, is not sufficient reason to award this point. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than point to spelling mistakes; it should be clear how those mistakes affected reading comprehension. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Having unsubstantiated claims may be part of the problem with one side's points, but it should be clear where, specifically, those problems are. (4) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess source reliability and not just number.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
islam is waging war on the world you moron.. is all i have to say to your self enslaving argument
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Overnight// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con, since he was the only one who provided reliable sources, which accurately help with his argument. Arguments go to Con because Pro just said that all Muslims are at war with people. Con said that there ramifications for passing the revolution would be catastrophic. Conduct for Con, since Pro attacked Con personally, rather than by his argument. Clear win for Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain that the sources provided are reliable, not just state that they are. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter can't just restate two points made in the debate and call it a day. It has to be clear why one side is winning based on those arguments. (3) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to point out specific conduct violations, and not just state that they occurred.
************************************************************************
Posted by DemosthenesWiggin 3 weeks ago
DemosthenesWiggin
This was going to be my round two argument:

There are three major reasons why Islam should not be banned:

Precedent: The ban of an entire religion would establish an extremely dangerous precedent for the future. Almost everyone agrees that the Holocaust, in which the entire Jewish religion was banned and persecuted, was a horrific and condemnable event. With a ban on Islam, the door would be opened for future atrocities such as the Holocaust, in which an entire religion is persecuted because of the (likely incorrect or stereotyped) beliefs of the leader.
War: In 2010, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, 23% of the world"s population (1). As in every religion (including Christianity), there are many Muslims who would rather die than give up their faith. A ban of Islam would lead to a major world war. Given that one of the reasons some call for a ban on Islam is to lessen violence, this would obviously be counterproductive.
Morality: Although the previous four reasons have dealt with the implementation and consequences of a ban on Islam, there is one further reason. Banning Islam is, in simple terms, wrong. Firstly, the terrorists and extremists are in the minority in the Umaah (Islamic community). In September of 2014, over 120 leaders and scholars of the Islamic world released a letter condemning the actions, followers, and beliefs of ISIS. That, combined with the fact that the majority of Muslims condemn ISIS and terrorism, including 91% of Iraqi Muslims, leads to the conclusion that punishing all Muslims for the acts of a minority of terrorists and extremists is wrong and goes against the basic human principle of fairness.
Posted by vi_spex 3 weeks ago
vi_spex
sure man
Posted by DemosthenesWiggin 3 weeks ago
DemosthenesWiggin
I wrote out a longer argument, however I accidentally left it on a flash drive where I can not get to it right now. I will post it in the comments section when I can get it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.