The Instigator
matrixsurvivor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Gambling for Muslims in Vea

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 11146
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

matrixsurvivor

Pro

I was reading this article about Gambling for Muslims:
http://www.gamblingplanet.org...
I have been in Vegas during Christmas and saw many Arabs (and I assume some were Muslims) gambling.

A friend of mine from Morocco actually said US should not allow Muslims in our casinos.

Now I wonder...should we really do that? And how? Stop every one with a passport from a Muslim country? I don't think so...
Korashk

Con

I thank my opponent for making this debate and I'll admit that this debate is a bit confusing to read and for the purposes of the debate I am going to assume that you are for the government allowing Muslims into casinos.

Therefore the resolution would be: "The U.S. government should allow muslims in our casinos."

The above resolution is how I see this and it is how I will be debating and as Con I accept the Burden of Clash. With that said here are a few opening arguments.

~
Contention 1:
A vast majority of casinos in America are privately owned and operated, therefore the government should not have a say as to who gets to go in them. This decision should be left to the proprietor of the casino. Currently I am not aware of any laws at all that regulate who can and can not enter a casino and I do not believe that any exist.

Contention 2:
In the Bill of Rights the First Amentment reads as such:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1]"

If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims.
~

I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.archives.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
matrixsurvivor

Pro

matrixsurvivor forfeited this round.
Korashk

Con

That is unfortunate. I extend my arguments and interpretation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
matrixsurvivor

Pro

matrixsurvivor forfeited this round.
Korashk

Con

I just noticed something that I for some reason failed to notice before and would like to amend at this time.

The argument:
///If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims.///

is now

If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering or specifically allowed Muslims entrance to casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims.
Debate Round No. 3
matrixsurvivor

Pro

matrixsurvivor forfeited this round.
Korashk

Con

That is unfortunate. I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
matrixsurvivor

Pro

matrixsurvivor forfeited this round.
Korashk

Con

I extend my arguments, and please vote for me.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
A mess. Con claimed the resolution was "The U.S. government should allow muslims in our casinos." but then argued in favor of the resolution, not opposed to it. Therefore Con agreed with Pro and argued the case that Pro failed to make. But since Pro failed to make any case, nor to clarify what he intended, nor to even show up, the debate has to go to Con. I think Pro intended to argue that Muslims should be allowed in casinos, but there is no way to know for sure.

Sometimes the US imposes retaliatory restrictions foreign nationals, like if Americans are not allowed to drive in country X, then citizens of X are not allowed to drive in the US. But that would be by country, not religion, and in retaliation for something. For example, some Muslim countries forbid Americans from bringing in Bibles ...
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I do not understand the position Pro is offering; I cannot accept.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
*should
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
What are you even trying to argue here? That muslims shouldn't be able to enter the US to gamble?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
lol @ opinion.

lol @ age restraint

lol @ resolution
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Who would even try to negate this? Whoever would, even if they put up at great arguement would get vote bombed like crazy!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
matrixsurvivorKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
matrixsurvivorKorashkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
matrixsurvivorKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
matrixsurvivorKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07