The Instigator
Ariesx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheOregonian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it appropriate for muslims to build a religious center near the world trade center

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 279 times Debate No: 87553
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Ariesx

Pro

Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
I will be defending Muslims' right to build a mosque, while Con says that it is either unacceptable due to 911, or outlaw it.
TheOregonian

Con

I accept the challenge.
I will be arguing against the ability to build any religious building, anywhere.
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Pro

In this debate, I will be proving that it is definitely appropriate for the Muslim community to build a religious center.
I will first offer the following terms:
Inappropriate-not suitable or proper in the circumstances.
Mosque-a Muslim place of worship.(Muslim Religious Center)
Appropriate-suitable or proper in the circumstances.
Definitions provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Appropriate- I believe that it should not be even a question on whether it is appropriate to build a mosque near the World Trade Center. It has been 15 years since 911 happened. 911 was not caused by the 1.6 billion followers of Islam. One cannot blame 1.6 billion Muslims for an act that was committed by less than 1% of there populations. I will first give examples of what modern day Muslims in America behave like, and whether these Muslims would be seen committing acts of terror.
Examples:
They're better educated than most Americans
U.S. Muslims have the second-highest level of education among major religious groups in the country; Jews have the highest. And a greater proportion of them have college degrees than the general U.S. population.
They have more gender equality

"While in many parts of the Muslim world, women are confined to second-class status, that's not the case among American Muslims. Virtually all of them, 90%, agree that women should be able to work outside the home. American Muslim women hold more college or postgraduate degrees than Muslim men. And they are more likely to work in professional fields than women from most other U.S. religious groups.

They've been here since the birth of the nation ...
Scholars estimate about a quarter to a third of the Africans brought to the United States as slaves were Muslims. Most were then forced to convert to Christianity.

but they're not as dogmatic as they are portrayed
Much has been made about fundamentalist Muslims and their strict interpretation of the Quran. But most American Muslims are different. A Pew religious landscape survey found that 57% of American Muslims say there is more than one way to interpret Islam's teachings. A similar number say many different religions can lead to eternal life.

Muslims also spoken out against it
After every terrorist attack at home and abroad, the refrain rises, "Where is the Muslim condemnation?" American Muslims have spoken out -- and done much more. A Duke University study found more terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. government investigations. And a Pew survey found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims say their religious leaders aren't speaking out enough against Islamic extremism." By Holly Yan, CNN
http://www.cnn.com.........

Not only does this article confirm that there is a difference between Muslims in America, and Muslims around the world, but if anything it has shown that this population does not commit acts of terror. It shows that half of U.S Muslims say their religious leaders aren't speaking out enough against Islamic extremism. This is a fact, and it comes from the common Muslim. US Muslims also have a higher level education. What is the probability of a Muslim commiting Jihad, if he has gone through College, and now has a stable job? The point is that American Muslims are different. 57% of American Muslims say that there is more than one way to interpret Islam.

If mu opponent tries to argue that in Islam, the religion publicly advocates for Jihad, my response would be:
Christianity and Judaism have this problem too.

1. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

2."This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3)

3."In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:27) Against Gay People

4. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

5. "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)

All religions have positive verses and negative verses. I do not believe that churches and synagogues preach this to the people that go there. I do not believe that Christians and Jews take literally what has been listed here. All religions have there faults, but they should still be allowed to worship in religious centers freely.
TheOregonian

Con

Thank you Ariesx, you have made my point for me. "Christianity and Judaism have this problem too.

1. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

2."This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3)

3."In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:27) Against Gay People

4. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

5. "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)"
I said in my acceptance that "I will be arguing against the ability to build any religious building, anywhere." I purposefully did not say 'muslim' or 'mosque' because I am against ALL religions, building religious buildings, anywhere. The point I am making is exactly what you said: All religions: a) have violent passages, b) allow for extreme radicalization, and often promote it, and c) are dangerous to the general welfare.

My problem with religious structures is twofold; one, it hinders the economy, and two, it promotes religion. For most/many of you, religion doesn't seem inherently bad. I will explain why you're wrong later. First let me explain the economical reasoning behind banning buildings of worship.

First of all, the key word is worship. Churches/Mosques often require their members to worship daily or weekly. This, during time which can and should be spent bettering oneself and one's society. Also, they often ask for donations, which nominally go towards charity but can be preyed upon by sticky-fingered religious officials.

The only real argument for them is for their ability to form a tight-knit, loving community. This may be true, but this bonded community is inwards-looking and oftentimes less open and friendly to those not in their church than they would otherwise be.

Next, let's take a look at religion: Why is it bad? Excluding what is stated above, a great many things. First of all: any religion centered around a religious text or religious texts has, as you have shown, many excerpt that can be construed to fit virtually any political agenda, and defend what used to be called being what was once called "devout" and what is now called "extremist". Secondly, religions assert the "one and only true way" to live, which eliminates personal freedoms. Also, most religions claim to be the "only true faith" which eliminates religious freedom. They assert 'facts' which are often proved wrong and creation myths to which the same fate awaits. these induce the 'devout' to discredit science as incorrect because their religion disagrees, and God is never wrong. Even worse is their refusal to accept medical improvements because they go against their beliefs, which can cause large amounts of suffering and death. But the worst of them all is that religions often teach to impose their beliefs of others, meaning many are forced to do things that hinder their personal well-being for another's religious beliefs.

So, in conclusion:
Muslims should not be allowed to build a Mosque near the World Trade Center, because
Muslims should not be allowed to build Mosques, because
No religion should be allowed to build religious structures, because
Religion should not be promoted in any way, shape, or form (including religious structures), because
Religion is bad
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Pro

I have to say that this has been the most unusual stance I have seen that can be argued to be legitimate. I will just state the obvious reasons and consequences of what Con wants.
Con states that he is arguing against the ability to build a religious building anywhere, because it hinders the economy, and promotes religion.

"My problem with religious structures is twofold; one, it hinders the economy, and two, it promotes religion."
Con does not give any evidence explaining the harms of promoting religion. I offer these statistics:
Protestants make up 46.5% of America
Catholics make up 20.8% of America
Mormon make up 1.6% of America.
Other Christian denominations make up 1.7% of America.
Judaism makes up 1.9% of America.
Islam makes up 0.9% of America.
Hinduism make up 0.7% of America.
Buddhism make up 0.7% of America.
Other religions make up 1.8% of America.
Unaffiliated make up 22.8% of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
The number of religious people make up over 200 million people in the United States of America. You cannot make it unacceptable, or deny them the right to worship.

"First of all, the key word is worship. Churches/Mosques often require their members to worship daily or weekly. This, during time which can and should be spent bettering oneself and one's society."
You cite no evidence stating that people are going to better themselves when that time in society. If you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, you will still find a way to devote time to your God. Also, what makes you think that there going to better themselves. They could do something unproductive like play video games, go on there computer, and phone.

"The only real argument for them is for their ability to form a tight-knit, loving community."
This is not the only real argument. They deserve a right to worship.

"Next, let's take a look at religion: Why is it bad? Excluding what is stated above, a great many things. "
All of these arguments can backfire. People will do political activities, and worship other things such as materialism if they are not going to worship God. The problems you list, I can understand, because I am an atheist. But, I would never enforce secularism on to those people.
//

Now, all the arguments that Pro has listed can backfire. Here is how:

Video Games: Because Video Games promote laziness, and unproductive habits. They should be deemed unnecessary. Video Games are also extremely addictive, and distract people from science and math. Here is a study showing how technology distracts Americans.
The study"s primary conclusion is that Americans don"t get enough sleep overall, and that the sleep they do get is largely rubbish. Waking up several times throughout the night, waking up too early, snoring like a truck, etc.
As Ric Flair once asked, what"s causing all this? Blame technology. As mentioned, fully 95 percent of Americans use a communications device in the hour before going to bed. That"s a critical hour, too, since ideally you"d be winding down before going to bed. Texting your friends, trolling Facebook, reading Charlie Sheen tweets, etc. All of this mental stimulation essentially keeps your brain awake, and prevents the release of a certain hormone that tells your body, "Hey it"s time to go to bed. Get tired."
http://techcrunch.com...
Should technology be deemed unacceptable. Pro's logic would support this idea.
TheOregonian

Con

"You cite no evidence stating that people are going to better themselves when that time in society."

There can be no evidence for hypothetical questions.

" If you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, you will still find a way to devote time to your God."

The point is to eliminate religion from our country as a whole.

" Also, what makes you think that there going to better themselves."

A genetic urge to perform well. And also, societal norms.

"They deserve a right to worship."

No, they do not. Devoting your life to the praise of a genocidal mass-murderer who had his son crucified is NOT a good thing.

"People will do political activities, and worship other things such as materialism if they are not going to worship God."

Political activities are a GOOD thing. Materialism is natural, genetic, positive. A caveman who strives for food and shelter will outperform those searching for moral truths.

"But, I would never enforce secularism on to those people."

Why not?

"Video Games: Because Video Games promote laziness, and unproductive habits. They should be deemed unnecessary. Video Games are also extremely addictive, and distract people from science and math. Here is a study showing how technology distracts Americans.
The study"s primary conclusion is that Americans don"t get enough sleep overall, and that the sleep they do get is largely rubbish. Waking up several times throughout the night, waking up too early, snoring like a truck, etc.
As Ric Flair once asked, what"s causing all this? Blame technology. As mentioned, fully 95 percent of Americans use a communications device in the hour before going to bed. That"s a critical hour, too, since ideally you"d be winding down before going to bed. Texting your friends, trolling Facebook, reading Charlie Sheen tweets, etc. All of this mental stimulation essentially keeps your brain awake, and prevents the release of a certain hormone that tells your body, "Hey it"s time to go to bed. Get tired."
http://techcrunch.com......
Should technology be deemed unacceptable. Pro's logic would support this idea."

Yes. I would support that idea. Maybe not texting, or some social media sites, which result in more communication, which in turn is positive.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Pro

My opponent's whole case can be summed up by this sentence.
Ban activities that cause people to have fun, or religious communities that feel the need to worship God.

Response:
Con has created the most absurd reasons for why there should be a need of banning activities.
With his logic, One can ban almost all activities that the government deems to be unproductive. All I have to argue against this is freedom of belief and freedom of expression. A person is free to express, worship anything they want to believe. Con fails to prove that any of the things he is arguing should be banned as any consequences. He also fails to understand the weight of the impacts of his arguments. Con does not provide any evidence for his claims, therefore making them irrelevant. How does Con know that if you ban all of these items that there will actually be a change in society? What if the change is harmful? What if the common man gets angry at the fact that he or she is not entertained anymore? There are so many consequences that could happen when you ban over 200 million peoples' right to worship, and entertain themselves. One could produce empirical results saying that also Hollywood is also unnecessary. One could produce empirical results saying that texting is unnecessary, because it has just become a tool for people to have fun. One could produce empirical results saying that people should not watch television, because it promotes laziness. There will be a huge consequences that would happen if Con intended to ban all of this with his absurd logic. America was founded on freedom of belief and freedom of expression. Con provides no evidence stating that the harms of worshiping God is that significant. Already in America, secularism is rising. The impact of organized religion is being deterred.
Reasons for winning:
-Con's does not provide any evidence saying that the impact of religion's harms are significant specifically in America.
-Con does not provide evidence in general.
-Con's logic fires on anything that is fun. Playgrounds and fairs should be banned under Con's world creating a boring world.
-Con never considers the consequences of banning such things, and never considers how significant of an impact this would have on over 200 million people.
TheOregonian

Con

My whole case can be summed up as I did before:
"Muslims should not be allowed to build a Mosque near the World Trade Center, because
Muslims should not be allowed to build Mosques, because
No religion should be allowed to build religious structures, because
Religion should not be promoted in any way, shape, or form (including religious structures), because
Religion is bad"
The top four statements are completely logical, assuming that the one below them is true, and the bottom statement is what I have been attempting to prove this entire time; that religion is bad.

To re-refute most of your main points:
A very large amount of people eat fast food. It has spread all over the world. People need food, and often the easiest option is fast food. But this does not make fast food healthy.

The point is to stop them from being Jewish/Christian/Muslim.

There is no such thing as rights. After all, if there is no God, where are they derived from.

My case is not "Ban activities that cause people to have fun, or religious communities that feel the need to worship God.". My case is that religion, in particular, is bad for the well-being of society. Imagine how you would feel if, every day, a large portion of workers temporarily left their jobs to go talk to their imaginary friends. That is how I view religion. That is my case.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mr.Speaker// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro avoided Con's tangential arguments and focused instead on affirming the resolution. Thus, I award Pro the win. Con's argument that "religion is bad" was an unwanted kritik that deviated the debate from its original topic. Thus, I could not award Con the win. Both debaters need to work on focusing on the resolution and not getting lost in refuting each other's arguments. Tie every point back to the resolution. Lastly, Pro used sources while Con used none; this largely contributed to Pro's victory.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by both sides and not just state why Con's arguments were tangential. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply compare numbers, even if one of those numbers is 0, as Pro's sources must have contributed to the debate.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.