Islam is Not a Violent Religion
PRO contends that Islam is not a violent religion, but that it is portrayed by such by the media's "focus on radicals." This, however, is not true. In fact, even though there are a fairly sizable amount of peaceful Muslims, this says nothing at all about Islam about as a faith - it's possible, for instance, for someone to identify as a Muslim, but not accept or take seriously every doctrine of the faith as described in the Quran. That doesn't change the fact that Islam itself - the faith itself - is nevertheless a barbaric and violent faith, which actively calls believers to violence against the infidel. Islamic radicals, such as ISIS, are merely following the teachings of their holy book. Indeed, PRO would agree, and in fact concedes, that this behavior is violent and despicable. So, provided that there's backing for these actions in the Quran, which there is, this debate is over.
First, there are at the very least 109 verses in the Quran actively calling Muslims to violence with non-believers (1). To provide some examples:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (1).This line urges Muslims to violently drive citiznens of Mecca out of their city and to "kill them wherever you find them," which is obviously quite violent.
Quran (2:244) "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things" (1).
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (1).
This verse establishes not only that fighting is a good thing, but that, given the context of its audience - it was written at a time when Muhammad was trying to motivate his people into looting merchant carvans (2) - this verse is advocating initiating violence in lieu of using it as a means of self-defense, claiming that it is "good for you." The Quran actively advocates violence, so how can anyone claim that Islam is not a violent religion? To do so is to deliberately deny reality.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help" (1).
This verse discusses wanting to punish non-believers not only on Earth, but in the Islamic variation of an afterlife - why would any religion advocate allowing innocent people to suffer? Could it be that they're violent by their very nature?
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
"Casting terror into the hearts of unbelievers" sounds rather violent, wouldn't you agree, audience?
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward" (1).
Now the Quran is actively encouraging martyrdom and dying for the sake of fighting for Allah - which could take the form of, say, religious warfare or suicide bombings, both of which are violent.
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward" (1).This verse condemns paceful Muslims, claiming they aren't on the same footing as - and will not receive the same rewards as - violent Muslims.
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." (1).
Inflicting pain and continuing to inflict pain upon an ememy (read: a non-believer) sounds rather violent.
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (1)."
Casting terror in nonbelievers and advocating for cutting off their heads - as ISIS does - and their fingers can be interpreted as nothing other than violence.
A similar verse:
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (1).
I could go on, but I think I've made my case rather well and this resolution has been 100% negated. What more can you expect from a religion for which the penalty for apostacy is death? My adversary wants to provide a politically correct accoun whereby all religions are equally peaceful, and any violence emenating from a subset of believers, even if that violence is in the name of religion, must be a distortion of said faith, even when the Quran actively encourages violence. This is a positively absurd way to whitewash the utterly despicable and disgusting elements of this faith. Islam *is* a violent religion. Even if Westernized Muslims are generally peaceful, that does not and cannot change the doctrines of Islam as embedded in the Quran.
I highly urge a vote for CON, as this resolution has been completely negated.
You used the Quran, so I thought it would be most appropriate to use it here as well. Your argument states that mine is 100% negated through the use of Quran-backing, but that statement is completely false, as shown below
Quran (6:107) - " Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them"
This verse describes how faith should not be forced, yet rather should be chosen.
Quran (60:8) - "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."
The people of Islam must act with passion and kindness. "Allah loveth those who are just" - preaching the peace and kindness. This sounds rather peaceful and non-violent.
And one of the most compelling arguments
"Anyone who kills a Non-Muslim who had become our ally will not smell the fragrance of Paradise."
This comes from teachings of the Prophet on how to treat non-Muslims. This sounds rather fair - killing a non-muslim will lead to suffering and those who commit those crimes will never reach solace or paradise.
In addition, your argument fails to address other religious forms of extremism or evidence of such in other Holy Books.
From the Bible:
Deuteronomy (20:11) - "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it..."
This preaches violence and slavery does it not? If a city or external forces offer you peace, then you shall force them into labor and they must serve you. Perhaps it is not as direct, but it contains the same connotation - that you should force some one else's hand. If they try to oppose you, then you should "besiege" them. We could see this as "destroy" or "kill" them.
Yet the main reason why this is not openly regarded as evidence of preaching violence is that the media does not focus on this nearly as much.
In addition, you have not at all addressed other religious extremist groups. I do not deny that radical groups, such as ISIS, are terrible forces, yet your argument seems to narrow-minded by stating that mine is 100% negated when in fact I have just proved otherwise.
Here is another extremist example you fail to consider: Hindu-based terror acts. Hindus have over the last several years committed hate crimes against thousands of innocent Muslims. In the average anti-muslim riot in India, three Muslims are killed for every Hindu killed. These violent uprisings are yet never covered by the media. Your argument has been completely shaped by media bias and this is the proof.
Your argument is not very compelling and is, must I say, slightly haughty. It is made on the assumption that EVERY Islamic follower will go only to the more violent phrases and enforce them. I concede that some of them do (the radicals), yet your argument makes the immediate and false assumption that every one of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world is following the Quran in a very anti-peaceful and terror-loving way. It also makes the false assumption that all Muslims are the same and all are radicals, and this is completely false and untrue. You state that my argument has been 100% negated, yet I have just proven otherwise. I could go on, but I have already proven my point - every religion has its radicals, but the media focus often shapes how we perceive and analyze those religions. One has a higher rate of radicalism, so it seems to those, such as yourself according to your argument, that the whole religion is a dangerous and violent one.
I would like to repeat one number - 1.6 billion. If Islam was as violent as you stated it was, then why aren't hundreds of millions more Muslims taking to groups such as ISIS? Your argument seems to make the point that we are in grave danger of Muslims becoming like ISIS radicals, yet they have barely managed to scrape up 31,500 members since 1999. Your argument even states "In fact, even though there are a fairly sizable amount of peaceful Muslims, this says nothing at all about Islam about as a faith." This does not make sense. Faiths are defined by ALL people who practice them, not just the radical ones. Your argument is invalid because of its extreme assumptions and lack of consideration of other parts of the Quran and other acts of religious violence.
Thanks again to PRO for this debate.
PRO states, "In addition, you do not consider the majority of people. Over 1.6 billion people follow Islam, and only a small percentage are radicals. Your argument, as you stated 'even though there are a fairly sizable amount of peaceful Muslims, this says nothing at all about Islam about as a faith,' assumes that most Muslims are radicals or want violence."
This is a complete strawman of my argument, demonstrating that PRO did not understand in the slightest what I was saying. My argument was that Islam is much removed from its followers. Islam, as a faith - which is what we are debating today, because Islam is a FAITH, not a pool of followers, whom we would call MUSLIMS - is violent, though this need not mean that all MUSLIMS, even casually, are violent. It is possible for a doctrine to be violent, and people who loosely adhere to said doctrine to be perfectly peaceful because they're ignoring several key doctrines of the Quran, but the Quran nevertheless states exactly what I put forward last round--actively encouraging gratututious violence and suffering of non-believers and even of peaceful Muslims. PRO provides absolutley no solutions or answers to the many quotes I provided where the Quran actively encourages violence, and only attempts to mitigate them, though poorly, so you're already voting CON.
PRO states, "You also state "fairly sizable amount", yet I wonder where you received the information, because my research has allowed me to find that 1.6 billion people follow Islam, meaning a vast majority are not radicals or violent."
First, you will note that PRO keeps harping on these meaningless distinctions, though whether it's "fairly sizeable" or even "most" would not affirm this resolution by virtue of the distinction between the doctrine itself and adherents to said doctrine.
Second, PRO claims that because they are 1.6 billion Muslims, the "vast majority" must not be radicals, but that's a non sequitur - and he provides no logical or empirical backing for it. A poll by Pew, for example, surveying 11 Muslim countries found that there was in fact support in the double digits for Islamic terrorist groups, and a third of total respondents expressing support for Hamas, while an incredible one fourth "do not have an opinion on terrorists" - or, in other words, were unwilling to condemn Islamic terrorism (1)(2).
PRO goes on to offer several quotes from the Quran, and claims that this in some way vindicates Islam - but it does not, especially when there are a multitude of verses not only encouraging violence, condemning peaceful Muslims and non-believers, and urging Muslims *not* to help non-believers. All these quotes that PRO provides do is suggest the Quran appears to be sending, in some areas, mixed messages - though even when we examine them in further context, we find this to not be the case. For instance, Quran (20:8) urges Muslims to "deal kindly and justly with [nonbelievers], but there is plenty of other backing from the Quran claiming that it is *just* to kill nonbelievers and to behead them. Context is completely critical. The first quote he offers, Quran (6:107), can be mitigated by the following:
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
This verse not only claims that nonbelievers will be punished, but that they will not have anyone to help them. This next verse offers a similar message:
Quran 4:89- "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
This line from the Quran says not only that you shouldn't be friends from non-believers, but that you should seize and slay them wherever you find them. All PRO's line says is that you are "not their guardian" and shouldn't force religion on them. So, instead of forcing religion on these people, you're told to reject them, to behead them, to slay them - which is, I'm afraid, extremely violent.
He then offers a line from the so-called Islamic prophet, saaw (3). First, you will note that this line *does not* come from the Quran, but from a human who claimed to be a prophet, and one who was, obviously, an incentive to convince people to follow Islam - even if they were to, as he is actually suggesting they do, completely ignore the doctrines of their faith, though that in no way *changes* the doctrines of Islam, which maintain their inherently violent roots. Moreover, this line refers to a "Non-Muslim who had become our aly." How do you determine whether said person is an aly? What if that person is an atheist, whom the Quran says you ought to kill? There's a great deal of ambiguity even in this line, which is why you should disregard it.
PRO then claims that I failed to address other forms of religious extremism or extremist groups. The reason for that is simple: they are completely and utterly irrelevant to our resolution, which concerns whether *Islam* is violent, not whether it is violent relative to other religions, which it most certainly is. Every line PRO provides from the Bible is completely and utterly non-topical, because if it Christianity were as violent a religion as Islam - and it is indeed, if you look at the Old Testament - a very violent religion, but that in no way even mitigates or bears on whether Islam is violent, so discard these irrelevant remarks.
His argument on media bias is utterly irrelevent, as well: where have I cited the media? Did I not show him direct quotes *from the Quran* actively advocating for and endorsing violence? PRO's post-hoc rationalization of Islam, with no backing sans his emotional attachment to Islam, cannot come close to even address the horros embedded in the Quran and committed by extremist groups, like ISIS, in their name. Even *if* some other form of religious extremism could measure up - and it can't - then that would not undermine in the slightest the horrors of Islam.
PRO goes on, once again, to strawman my argument, so allow me to be very clear:
(1) Never once did I say that *every* Muslim is violent - I said *directly* than many will not adhere to every verse in the Quran, though this harkens back to my distinction between Muslims and Islam, the latter of which we're debating. Never once did I say, nor must I argue, that all Muslims are the same or that they are "terror loving," though some are.
(2) My arguments haven't the slightest thing to say about how the 1.6 billion Muslims are acting - it doesn't concern this resolution in the slightest because we're debating doctrine, not the actions of followers.
(3) My argument does not hinge on the existence of extremist groups such as ISIS. Even if ISIS did not exist, my arguments would stand because the doctrine of Islam, shown in the Quran, is inherently violent, so PRO's argument on "media bias" is utterly ludicrous.
PRO does nothing more than strawman my argument and change the goalposts to talking about Muslims and other religious groups, in lieu of the doctrines of Islam, which is what we wre debating. Moreover, he does nothing at all to engage the verses from the Quran I provided which actively encourage violence, stating only that many Muslims don't follow them - which, again, has no bearings on whether those verses, or the doctrine of Islam itself, is violent.
The resolution is, once again, 100% negated.
The opposing team states that other religious extremist groups are completely irrelevant, yet this again is a narrow-minded view, as religious extremism is defined by how other religions behave in relation to each other. For example, if Islam were the only religion with extremist groups while all others were peaceful, we would see them as violent. However, the reason, I repeat once again, that we see Islam as so violent, even in the presence of other religious extremist groups is that the media focuses mostly on them.
You also speak of my "emotional attachment". Need I remind the CON that this debate is not about emotions, but rather about how the religion is viewed as violent or non-violent. I am simply stating that we cannot categorize an entire religion as violent based on how a select few act in the name of that religion.
The CON continuously states that my argument is 100% negated. Despite this being a sign of nothing else to argue, you seem to be entertaining the thought that Islam is a violent religion simply based on its teachings. Even if its teachings are violent, we see that most Muslims are not so violent and war-mongering. The CON also states that we are debating the doctrine and not the actions of its followers, yet the Resolution states "Islam is Not a Violent Religion". The keyword is religion, which includes both the doctrine and the actions of its followers. Yet the opposing sides seems to believe that the resolution states "Islam's Teachings are Not Violent". I urge you to review and take a closer look at the meaning of the resolution. The opposing team has a weak argument that only focuses on the negative aspects of the religion's doctrines, while making insufficient concessions of the non-violence of the billions more.
The CON yet again seems to believe that the religious groups define an entire religion from the statement
"PRO does nothing more than strawman my argument and change the goalposts to talking about Muslims and other religious groups"
With the specific use of strawman, you state that I am commiting to fallacy and wrongly accusing your argument, yet I have constantly referred to your argument and their fundamental flaws.
The CON states that the doctrine is relevant, while the statements of the Prophet and the actions of its followers are not. I once again request that the CON pays attention to the resolution. A religion is defined as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance" . You cannot simply state that religious documents are all that matter while disregarding the people and the holy members of the religion.
The CON also discusses the ambiguity of certain lines in the Quran, stating we should disregard them. Yet, we need to consider this - do all Muslims simply disregard some of those lines of peace that hint ambiguity and go to violence? The answer is a definite no.
The CON states that the context is completely critical, and the PRO could not agree more, yet the CON fails to understand that context is not only in the document itself. We, as a human society, must look at how the religion has been practiced. The 1.6 billion people are 100% relevant because, as I stated before, religion is not simply about the holy documents, but also about the followers and their practices.
The CON also bought up the poll by Pew. Firstly, the link provided leads to the website, but no results are found - this disproves the validity of your argument on the basis that the data is false. I did my own research on Pew and found that there is outstanding concern and anger against Islamic extremist groups in Islamic nations. In fact, many Muslims are against these extremist groups an fear them - these people are part of the religion and help to define it as non-violent. 74% of Shia Muslims and 72% of Sunni Muslims in Lebanon are against the violence. I will remind the CON that Lebanon is one of the Islamic nations that the West associates with Islamic Radicalism . Does it make sense that they are both violent and disapproving of the minority of Islamic radicals?
Another point I must bring up - Even though the PRO disagrees with this, the CON believes that the followers are irrelevant and we must only focus on the doctrines of the religion. If so, then why bother with false statistics of the modern day supposedly from Pew? This is a stark and noticeable contradiction in the CON's argument, which states that we should only consider the doctrine and not the followers. I understand that extremist groups exist, and so does the CON, yet they cannot define an entire faith.
There maybe evidence of cruelty in the Quran, but there is one fundamental fact that I will repeat AGAIN to be clear:
A religion is not only defined by its Holy documents, but also by the way that its followers practice the religion.
This resolution requires a holistic view of Islam as a religion. Your argument would hold ground if the resolution concerned only negative portions of the Holy Texts, but it does not. We must also consider the positive aspects of both the religious texts and its followers.
The PRO looks at the religion as a whole, considering all aspects and making a few slight and appropriate concessions about portions of the Quran; however, the CON does not completely address the peaceful aspects of the Quran, believing in its violence in a narrow-minded way.
Did I not show him quotes that express how Islam is a peaceful religion through quotes from the Quran and statistics of the religion's followers? I request that the CON take on a holistic view of the religion and its doctrines. The Quotes I provided prove time and again that Islam is not a violent religion, even though it contains a few extremist radicals. The CON also accuses the me of fallacy, when in fact, he is guilty of such - I have NEVER stated that all religions are equally peaceful. It is true that some are more turbulent than others in terms of peace, but I highly recommend that the CON takes on a holistic view before constructing the next argument.
Let me begin by defining Islam and framing our resolution, which seems to have eluded PRO. Google's dictionary defines it as "the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah." Islam is the religion--it does not refer to its adherents. Once again, PRO's incendiary, fact-free attempt to strawman my arguments by claiming that I'm white-washing all Muslims is absurd, and doesn't relate in the slightest to the resolution. He is doing nothing more than changing the goalposts of this debate, and I urge our judges to bear this in mind when they consider dolling out conduct points. I have never characterized Islam as violent because of the behavior of a "select few." As I said last round, and as PRO again misunderstands, even if ISIS did not exist, the doctrines of Islam would, and they would be ipso facto by virtue of what they are, not by virtue of what people believe them to be.
First, the distinction between what constitutes "fairly sizeable" and "vast majority" is somewhat subjective--though the Pew poll I provided from last round lays waste to PRO's claim that a "vast majority" are peaceful. With that said, though, this is utterly irrelevant, because we are not debating about Muslims, but about Islam--a point which PRO fails to understand.
He goes on to question whether the Pew poll was fair because statistics *can* be skewed. This is not even close to a valid argument, and unless he can show a flaw in the methodology of the poll--which he hasn't--the point extends forward. You cannot discredit an argument or a poll by claiming, "Well, that poll could be biased." The onus is on you to prove that it is biased, as is the purpose of debate. But, once more, this is irrelevant to what our resolution actually is--and that seems to be the theme of PRO's remarks.
He then goes on to claim that religious extremism is "how other religions behave in relation to others." But this isn't true at all. It's possible to hold in mind that there are elements of all religions which are inherently violent. For instance, Christianity is also a violent religion because the Old Testament encourages believers to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath-irrespective of whether or not extremists groups behaved in this way, or whether the media reported on this, the *doctrine* of Christianity would remain the same, as would the doctrine of Islam. We determine whether religions are violent--once more--not based on the behavior of their adherents, but by the text of the Holy Book. People can and will disregard key elements of their doctrine, but that doesn't make the doctrine any less violent. PRO never attempts to engage this, or to address the quotes I offered from the Quran which actively encourage violence toward non-believers.
PRO claims, "Even if its teachings are violent, we see that most Muslims are not so violent and war-mongering." You will note that PRO continues to side-step the quotations I offered from the Quran, and has just conceded the debate by admitting that the teachings of Islam are inherently violent. He claims that religion involves "both the doctrine and actions of its followers," but this does not originate from a dictionary--he is making up definitions ex post facto to rationalize his case. The definition of religion, according to Google's dictionay, is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." This says nothing of the actions of its followers, nor are they relevant to what is in the Quran. You will also note that I never made a concession about non-violence with respect to the doctrines of Islam--but rather noted that the Westernied variation of the faith does not generally condone beheading people. This is well and good, but this does not change Islam OR the religion; it simply means that self-proclaimed adherents to Islam are cherry-picking which elements of their faith they'd like to follow. Again, that doesn't bear at all on the doctrine or our resolution, in spite PROs deceptive attempt to redefine a word for which the dictionary definition is already abundantly clear.
He goes on to misunderstand why I accused him of committing a strawman fallacy--in the process strawmanning me once more! I never once said that religious groups define an entire religion, and it was PRO's insistence that I did, or that this insight originates from the media, that was a strawman argument. I based my arguments on the text of the Quran--the doctrine of the religion itself--not on what any particular person believes or claims to believe, and to assert otherwise is disingenuous and factually wrong. PRO has done nothing to address "fundamental flaws" in my arguments--he only wants to address what he sees as flaws in arguments that I never made, but he thinks I made, and his attempt to change the goalposts to religious groups or other religious texts obviates our resolution.
He goes on to provide a definition of religion which doesn't serve the meaning he thinks it does. The first definition refers to no religion in particular, but only to devotion to a God--in other words, adherence to a religious text and the God it depicts. The second definition refers to committiment or observance to that faith, or the act of following the religious. This definition do not even remotely include "the people and the holy members of the religion," and it is dishonest for PRO to claim that they do. You've see now three definitions of religion from us both, and none of them say what PRO thinks they do.
He then goes on to drop my rebuttals to the lines of the Quran he mentiond, and only claims that Muslims won't take these lines as a call to violence. I don't want to belabor the point, but this is once again irrelevant to the resolution.
PRO then claims to care about context--but then continues to change the goalposts and disregard the context in which it was writte (e.g., the fact that Mohammad tried to encourage his people to loot merchant caravans, and that the text justifies this). He cares not for the context of the text or he wouldn't have dropped my entire case.
The Pew Poll is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant to this debate, as I've stressed. Firstly, the link was broken--but I accessed the study by clicking Enter a second time, which CON can do as well. He then claims that because there are numbers upwards of 70% against violence, that this vindicates Islam. It doesn't for two reasons: one, we're not debating whether the *followers* of Islam are violent, for the upteenth time. Two, why isn't it 100%, but only 72% and 74%? How about the statistic I provided last round of a third of these Muslims agreeing with the violence? That is only because they are *following the doctrines of their religion.* Never once did I provide a false statistic: the numbers are there, and both PRO and our audience can verify them. He asks why I would bring this up if I only thought we were debating the doctine--that was because I wanted to draw a key contrast between followers who adhere strictly to the violent doctrine of Islam and followers who do not.
The entirety of PRO's argment is full of distortions, strawman arguments, and changing-the-goalpost fallacies. Never once did I base my argument on what the followers of Islam believe or don't believe, nor did I cite false statistics. Pew is a reputable organization, and anyone can access the study, entitled "Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups: Much Diminished Support for Suicide Bombing."
The point here, though, is that PRO provided two definitions of religion and I provided one, along with a definition of Islam. Not one of them concerned what the followers of Islam believe--but only the doctrines of the faith itself. PRO completely fails to engage my entire case and drops my rebuttals to the quotes he provides, only attempting to mitigate instead of rebut.
For that reason, you vote CON.
ss5565 forfeited this round.
This is unfortunate--but I extend all my arguments.
Overall, PRO has strawmanned every single one of my arguments. He hadn't properly engaged a single thing that I have said, and of the four definitions the two of us have collectively provided of "religion" and "Islam," absolutley none of them say what PRO disingenuously asserts they do. We are debating whether the doctrine of Islam is violent--not whether people who loosely follow Islam are. He has falsely accused me of tarnishing 1.6 billion Muslims, which is not the case, nor is it even part of my case, nor does it need to be. He has spent this entire debate thus far evading points and attacking me personally in lieu of actually immersing himself in substante.
For those reasons, and for the forfeit, I urge you to vote CON both on arguments and conduct. I will now pass this back to him.
ss5565 forfeited this round.
PRO has once again forfieited. Here's why you're voting CON:
(1) He forfeited the last two rounds, so not only does he lose conduct, but my rebuttals and defenses remain unchallenged.
(2) He dropped my entire case, including the quotes I provided from the Quran.
(3) His definitions as well as mine support the fact that Islam is a doctrine, separable from people who may follow it, loosely or not
(4) He never properly engaged a single argument of mine, only strawmanning them and issuing ad-hominem attacks
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|