The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
rwebberc
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

Islam is THE main threat to liberty and life and Judeo-Christianity is key to PRESERVING BOTH

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  
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: 12/25/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,584 times Debate No: 998
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (30)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

Here you go

Lets have at it

I site the following websites to prove Islam is the greatest threat

If you wont bother reading them, dont bother debating me

www.prophetofdoom.net

www.faithfreedom.org

www.jihadwatch.com

www.religionofpeace.com

Now in terms of Christianity

here is a good site

http://www.realtruth.org...

Christians are good people who save lives, help the poor, provide charity, and provide a bullwark agsint the ACLUE types

good luck !

and Merry Christmas
rwebberc

Con

I apologize for the delayed response, my father has been in the hospital for the last few days and I have been unable to find time to post an argument.

First let me define some terms.

Merriam Webster defines the following terms as follows:

Threat: An expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
Liberty: The power to do as one pleases, or the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

Secondly, I Would like to say that I have looked at all the sites you mentioned and have found them to be nothing more than Islamophobic hate sites. The people who run the sites and commentate on Islam are ill-qualified to be making the statements they are making. All of the websites exhibit a clear conservative political agenda.

ProphetOfDoom is run by Craig Winn. Winn graduated from USC with degrees in marketing and finance. He founded the online mall Value America, which went bankrupt in 2000. After 9/11, Winn self-published several anti-Islam books which went largely unnoticed. Winn's books have largely been criticized as "cashing in on fear and ignorance."

FaithFreedom is run by self-described "ex-Muslim" Ali Sina, who lives in Canada. The website allows anyone to submit an an anti-Islam article, and provides no biographies or qualifications for Sina or any of its "authors". Sina does provide this interesting quote which clearly goes against your position in this argument: "My criticism applies to all religions. The very concept of God sending messengers to be known and worshipped is absurd. All those who come pretendipg to bring a message from an invisible god that only they can see are charlatans and their claims are bogus. I do believe in a higher Reality and a Single Principle underlying the creation, but not in an egotistic self-centered petulant deity as depicted by these self-appointed prophets."

Jihad Watch is run by writer Robert Spencer. Spencer graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill with an M.A. in Early Christianity. Similar to Winn, Spencer has published several books critical of Islam since 9/11. These books have been criticized because they "support preconceived notions through selection bias" and because Spencer has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever.

Religion of Peace is run by an anonymous person. Once again, it was started in response to 9/11 in order to make people aware of the fact that "there is something deeply, deeply wrong with Islam."

If you intend to make some sort of argument from authority, I suggest you find some sources who are more impartial, or at least generally academically recognized.

Islam has existed for 1300 years, and yet these attacks which you use as your justification for your argument are a largely modern phenomenon. These websites you use as your information on Islam accentuate the violent verses of the Quran while ignoring the peaceful ones. Similar verses exist in both the New and Old Testaments. Do you really think we can win the War on Terrorism by stopping everyone in the world from practicing Islam? No, the political tensions which fuel modern terrorists would still remain.

Muslims are also people who "save lives, help the poor, provide charity" and I hope you will soon realize how dubious your argument really is.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

So all you can do is site the undergrad universities of these scholars, attempt to discredit them, and thats your argument ?

you are sinlgulary unqaulified to debate this subject

that said, I sincerely hope your father is better soon

happy new year

solarman
rwebberc

Con

First of all, the reason I kept my opening argument brief was in interest of equal time, since you did the same. I believe my questioning of your sources was more than legitimate, but I will let the audience be the judge of that. If you are not going to provide any arguments of your own, then so be it.

On another note, thank you for your concern for my father, he was released from the hospital last night.

Islam has come under fire from many on the religious and political right following 9/11. Their claims are that modern fundamentalist regimes such as the Taliban, as well as Islamic militant groups such as Al Qaeda are proof that there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam and that it threatens our world as we know it. The media has latched on to this interpretation of Islam, and in the West, Islam has acquired connotations similar to Nazism.

Islam, however, is not the threat you are making it out to be. In fact the threat you are describing is the one that comes from the current political instability in many Middle Eastern countries. But to equate Islam with the immediate situation of one Islamic country or another is foolish. As i stated earlier, the problems which your websites address are a MODERN phenomenon. Islam has existed for centuries without being a "threat to liberty and life". What about Islam has changed in the last 50 years? Nothing. What has changed is the political atmosphere in the Middle East. Al Qaeda and many other militant groups have Qutbism at their basis. Qutbism is a radical interpretation of Islam that is based on the teachings of Sayidd Qutb. Qutb first wrote about this interpretation of Islam in the 1930's. His hard-line interpretation of Islam cites the cultural and military imperialism of the West as well as the moral corruption of the United States as motivations for his writings.

Let's examine the threat that is posed by militant Islam, anyways, shall we? Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country by far, has a democratically elected government and, aside from the Bali bombings a few years ago, has made essentially no headlines due to Islamic terrorism. In the United States, John Mueller of Foreign Affairs Journal puts it well: "Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad."

So where is this threat to life and liberty you are talking about? Every day, tens of thousands of people around the world die from starvation and our planet is growing warmer each year due to our own pollutants, yet only a few die from Islamic terrorism. The burden of proof is on you to show that Islam actually poses such a threat.

Instead of dismissing me as a Stalinist, I challenge you to actually respond to my arguments for once, Solarman.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Ok all you experts

let me first pick apart your points

you say this is not accurate

Their claims are that modern fundamentalist regimes such as the Taliban, as well as Islamic militant groups such as Al Qaeda are proof that there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam and that it threatens our world as we know it. The media has latched on to this interpretation of Islam, and in the West, Islam has acquired connotations similar to Nazism.

this is absoultely right on the money, DEAD ON

How is Islam akin to Nazism? Simple

Virutlent Anti-semitism, and historical alliances

Here is the July 4 1974 reference from the Terrorism timeline (the reason why I am posting this info is because you fools who think Islam is OK and have no clue refuse to read the history involved and therefore I will make it easier for you, if you care not to be ignorant and try and blame me)

July 4, 1974: One of Islam's Patriarchs of Terror, and the father of the Hanjar (Handschar, Khanjar, Scimitar or Sword) Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, the Mufti Mujahideen, and the Supreme Muslim Council, Mohammad (Muhammad) Hajj Amin al-Husayni (alternatively spelt al-Husseini), the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem died on July 4th, 1974. Over the course of his 80-year life, the Palestinian Islamic religious and political leader conspired to slaughter over six-million Jews. He was among the most evil men whoever lived.

Known best for his anti-Semitism and union of Islam and Nazism, Mufti Muhammad Hajj Amin al-Husayni fought against the establishment of a Jewish state. To this end, Husayni was an active collaborator with Adolf Hitler in World War II, and he was a substantial contributor to the Final Solution.

Since this Muslim is important, albeit in the most horrible sense imaginable, you should know that his title "Grand Mufti" means that Muhammad Husayni was considered to be an "Islamic Scholar." The Mufti title was awarded to Islamic clerics who were authorized to interpret the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah, and Sharia, and who, based upon their extensive knowledge of Islam, were licensed to issue binding religious dictates called fataawa, plural of fatwa.

In the years leading up to World War I, Muhammad Hajj Amin al-Husayni studied at the School of Administration in Istanbul, which at the time was the heart and soul of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. In 1914, Muhammad joined the Ottoman Turkish Army. He received a commission as an artillery officer and was assigned to the 47th Brigade stationed around the Greek Orthodox city of Smyrna in present-day Turkey. Smyrna was the recipient of the second of seven prophetic letters the Messiah Yahshua dictated to John in Revelation. The crux of that letter is a warning, predicting ten epochs of persecution.

In 1915, as an officer in the Ottoman Army, Muhammad Hajj al-Husseini would have been at the very least a witness to the Armenian Christian genocide. The forced relocation and systematic rape, enslavement, and death of 1.3 million Christians in concentration camps at the hands of the Muslim Ottoman Turks, Germany's WWI ally, would serve as the model for the mass murder of six-million Jews in the Nazi holocaust twenty years hence.

Muhammad al-Husayni used his personal experience in this regard to inspire Adolf Hitler. Shortly after meeting the Mufti, Adolf Hitler cited the killing of the Armenians as a precedent for his own slaughter of the Jews. "Kill without mercy!" the Nazi leader told his military. "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Ok so theres your Nazi-Islam bound-at-the-hip tied through history

And it certainly doesnt end with the Islamic nations' collaboration with the Nazis 60 years ago- and the axis throughout the war

Ahm-a-damn-jihad , the idiot fool is Iran, states in front of the world (1) that the holocaust is a myth and (2) israel will be wiped off the map

maps in Palestine and other arab nations DO NOT have Israel on them

Oh, I know- they are the poor suppressed ones, those poor arabs, with only 99.6% of all the land in the middle east , and its all the fault of me, Bush , the Jews and the United States -

your next inane point -------------------------------

Islam, however, is not the threat you are making it out to be. to equate Islam with the immediate situation of one Islamic country or another is foolish

Oh really?

So what IS their problem then, genius ?

the Jews for just exisiting?
our foreign policy?
years of suppression by us meanies in the west?

are you stupid ? or just liberal ? (they are the same)

your next inane point ----------------------------

Islam has existed for centuries without being a "threat to liberty and life".

Huh? how about the 1.3 million armenians slaughtered? how about the HUNDREDS of millions who have been murdered, enslaved, tortured, and what not for 1300 years by Islamists and muslims?

you have not the slightest clue what your talking about

your next not so stupid point -----------------------

Al Qaeda and many other militant groups have Qutbism at their basis. Qutbism is a radical interpretation of Islam that is based on the teachings of Sayidd Qutb

Ok here you are getting closer - but he is only ONE of many "fathers" of modern terror- albeit an important one, being the spritiual leader of the muslim brothehood

Now what you DONT seem to get is that Al Queda, MB, and the HUNDREDS of other terror clubs (http://www.prophetofdoom.net...) REPRESENT THE REAL ISLAM, AS PRACTICED BY THEIR TRUE SPIRITUAL LEADER MOHAMMED.

Why are they gaining strength ? simple- OIL MONEY , lots of it

your next stupid point-----------------

Let's examine the threat that is posed by militant Islam, anyways, shall we? Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country by far, has a democratically elected government and, aside from the Bali bombings a few years ago, has made essentially no headlines due to Islamic terrorism.

Really, theres no problems in Indonesia with muslims? try again

East Timor http://www.scn.org...

Jakarta http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Aceh http://www.command-post.org...

Ok , now back to you

How about PAKISTAN? the Murder of Bhutto? no problems with that NUCLEAR POWER are there?

How about Iran? Syria? Egypt ? Somalia? Saudi ? Lebanon ? I can go on

your next OK point --------------------

In the United States, John Mueller of Foreign Affairs Journal puts it well: "Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11.

Duh? Its called INTELLIGENCE and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION

That is why we havent been attacked, and there have been HUNDREDS of PLOTS foiled by GOOD INTEL, including the Holland Tunnel and Fort Dix.

Are you trying to say its becuase the muslims are nicey-nice here? DUH!

your final really stupid points -------------

where is this threat to life and liberty you are talking about?

DUH!

starvation and our planet is growing warmer each year due to our own pollutants

DUH ! people are starving ! Global Warming!

this is so typical of liberalism - make stupid points that arent backed up by facts, and then at the end, completely switch to some totally different and irrelevant topic.

No, sorry, this deabte is about ISLAM BEING A THREAT to ALL OF US.

I have proven it without a doubt, and if you think I and George Bush are the problem, becuase you are stupid, then just read the daily headlines and if you have the guts, really read prophetofdoom and you may wake up.

If you dont, there will still be brave men like myself to defend your pansy liberal asses.

next?
rwebberc

Con

First of all, I don't know what it is with you and personal attacks. They don't mean anything coming from a 38 year old hatemongerer who spends this much time on the internet.

Let's review your points from the last argument:

"Ok so theres your Nazi-Islam bound-at-the-hip tied through history"

Congratulations, you found one Muslim leader who had ties to the Nazis. So what? Does this man speak for all of Islam? Of course not. I can name many Christian leaders who either were a part of the Nazi party or directly influenced Nazism.
Let's start with one you may have heard of: Martin Luther, the man considered by many to be the founder of Protestantism. Luther's 60,000 word thesis "On the Jews and Their Lies" is considered by many historians, including Robert Michael, Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford, to have been a significant influence on Hitler and the Nazis. Consider this speech from Hans Hinkel, head of the film department of the Nazis' Propaganda Ministry: " "Through his acts and his spiritual attitude, he began the fight which we will wage today; with Luther, the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun." The Nazis even celebrated a holiday called Luther Day.
When Hitler came to power, he consolidated all the Protestant churches in Germany into one "German Christian" Church, which emphasized the evolution of religion into the power of the Aryan race. Among Germany's 17,000 pastors, 3,000 of them joined the movement, despite being free to oppose it. The Church was very influential in the Nazis' initial consolodation of power.
These two points prove both the influence and involvement of Christianity at the very core of Nazism. However, to equate the actions of a few with an entire religion is entirely oversimplistic. Your claims such as "as an officer in the Ottoman Army, Muhammad Hajj al-Husseini would have been at the very least a witness to the Armenian Christian genocide" have no meaning in this argument. Harping on the actions of one man is not enough to tie an entire religion with the Nazi movement or any other movement.

"maps in Palestine and other arab nations DO NOT have Israel on them"

So the people who were displaced in the Zionist movement are anti-Zionist? Who would have thought? Many people throughout history have been anti-Zionist, including Gandhi. Was Gandhi therefore a threat to life and liberty? Your claim here is weak. What does this have to do with being a "threat"? Simply because they refuse to recognize a country which they deem to have come about through illegitimate means?

"So what IS their problem then, genius ?

the Jews for just exisiting?
our foreign policy?
years of suppression by us meanies in the west? "

This is the closest you have come to being right about anything so far. The Bush Doctrine, with its preventive wars that kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, regime changes that put men into power who will support our interests without considering the politics of the region, and unchallenged US military superiority as a deterrent against disagreeing with US policy, has angered many people around the world. Especially in the Middle East, where US intervention has always smacked of paternalism.

"Huh? how about the 1.3 million armenians slaughtered? how about the HUNDREDS of millions who have been murdered, enslaved, tortured, and what not for 1300 years by Islamists and muslims?"

I'm not really sure what you're referring to here because as usual you fail to provide factual support for your argument. Granted the Armenian Genocide was a terrible event, but to simply say that it was Muslims killing Christians is to completely distort the situation. The Ottomans fought in World War I on the side of the Central Powers. In February 1915, the Ottomans attempted to encircle the Russian Caucasus Army. Despite the odds being in their favor, the Ottomans failed, blaming the Armenian Battalions of sabotage. The Ottomans then went about killing or exiling a vast majority of the Armenian community. However, if you look at the website for the Armenian National Institute explaining the Genocide, you will find no mention of the words "Christan" or "Muslim". (http://www.armenian-genocide.org...)

"Now what you DONT seem to get is that Al Queda, MB, and the HUNDREDS of other terror clubs (http://www.prophetofdoom.net......) REPRESENT THE REAL ISLAM, AS PRACTICED BY THEIR TRUE SPIRITUAL LEADER MOHAMMED"

What evidence do you have for this? This is just another baseless claim that you apparently have no intention of backing up. The link you provide simply gives background information on specific terror groups. Muhammad called both Christians and Jews "People of the Book" and viewed them as natural allies of his time. He even married a Jewish woman, Safiyya bint Huyayy, at one point. So how can you equate the anti-Semitism of today with Muhammad? You are letting Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban define what Islam is. Every time they release a tape saying that they are "true practicers of Islam", you and your hateful friends are standing up and applauding. Doesn't that strike you as sick? It's almost as though by saying this you are "emboldening" the terrorists (haha). In the words of your pal George W., "Islam is peace." (http://www.whitehouse.gov...)

"Really, theres no problems in Indonesia with muslims? try again"

Thank you SO much for bringing up East Timor! You have once again made my point for me! On December 7, 1975, Indonesian Forces invaded East Timor by air and sea using an arsenal of US-supplied weapons, and doing so with US approval. Don't believe me? You can read all about it right here in the National Security archive! (http://www.gwu.edu...) This invasion led to decades of fighting between East Timor rebels and Indonesian troops until East Timor gained independence in 1999. There you have it, another instance of US intervention causing trouble in the Muslim world.
The second link you posted, regarding Jakarta, is about a possible terrorist attack that never materialized. Guess who did the warning? The US. Another instance of fearmongering in the hopes of garnering more support for our "War on Terror".
Finally, you list one more link, citing a terror attack 2 and a half years ago that killed 22 people. I hardly think this qualifies as proof that Islam is a threat to our life and liberty. What about the Virginia Tech massacre that killed 32 people? Is that proof that Korean-Americans or angry loners are the main threat to our life and liberty?

"Duh? Its called INTELLIGENCE and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION

That is why we havent been attacked, and there have been HUNDREDS of PLOTS foiled by GOOD INTEL, including the Holland Tunnel and Fort Dix."

Again, I would like to see your evidence for this. Every time a terror plot is "foiled" the Bush Administration makes it public. Remember the 7 guys in Miami who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower? The Attorney General held a press conference the same day announcing that one. Here's an excerpt: "One of the individuals was familiar with the Sears Tower, had worked in Chicago, and was familiar with the tower. But in terms of the plans, it was more aspirational than operational." One of the guys was acquitted, and the jury couldn't return a verdict on the other six. If they bother makiing plots like that public, why wouldn't they tell people about the other "HUNDREDS" of plots that they are foiling?
I have run out of characters, but I'm confident I've proven pretty much every aspect of your argument wrong. If you would like to do this again with a full debate and maybe some factual evidence, I would love to.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
mma, a quick look at America's interventions in the third world over the last fifty years should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that America, by the conventional definition of terrorism, is the world's leading terrorist state. It places the interests of a few of its elites above the interests of the rest of the world, including its own citizens. It has installed or supported countless brutal dictators. It has robbed developing nations of their natural resources. It has intentionally undermined the spread of democracy.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Because terrorist acts are carried out in the name of Mohamed, it certainly doesn't mean that he would have condoned those acts. Similarly, many terrorist acts have been carried out in the name of Jesus, but he wouldn't condone them either. Islam is a religion and a ethnicity, perhaps, but it is not a political entity in and of itself. Extremists only use Islam to achieve their political goals just as Hitler did in his attempt to eradicate Jews. Judeo-Christians canot be the champions of life and liberty if it is bent out of shape in erradicating a whole ethnic race based simply upon their religion with a hatred fueled by the despicable acts of a minority.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"The U.S. is the main threat to life and liberty..."

Wow. Just wow. There isn't enough space here for me to espouse the contempt I hold for the "blame America first" crowd.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
They are carried out in the name of Islam, in the name of Muhammad, specifically. The "political goals" ARE Islamic in nature.

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

Compel them to withdraw from where? Countries ruled by Islam. There is no tolerance for anything non-Islamic. The withdrawal they seek isn't patriotic, it's religious. There is no separation of church and state in Islamic countries. Islam IS the Government. Political movements ARE religious movements in Islamic countries. That is what those of us in the west have such a hard time understanding. They oppose democracy not on a political level, but on a religious one.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
The U.S. is the main threat to life and liberty...
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Fundamentalism, as commonly used today usually comes close to a fanatic belief that only their religion is the right one. Anything taken to an extreme even if it is inherently good, be it Judeo-Christianity or Islam, is downright dangerous. So much war is fought in the name of men who preached peace. How can that be?
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Once again, you are oversimplifying a situation. These attacks are not carried out in the name of Islam. They have political goals behind them. These attacks are a MODERN phenomenon, how can you blame them on a 1300 year old religion? The world leader in suicide bombings is a secular group you may have heard of called the Tamil Tigers. They are a Marxist group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka. Their goal is to overthrow the Sri Lankan government due to their policies towards the nation's Tamil communities. Here is a quote from Dr. Robert Pape, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and author of the book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism."
Says Pape:
"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

As far as calling Muhammad and his followers a "band of thieves", the vast majority of experts and academics today would strongly disagree with you and I challenge you to provide some sort of support for your claims.

I realize that there are serious problems in much of the Muslim world, but to blame them solely on religion is a dangerous denial of the current political situation.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
Solarman1969 -

I asked you first.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Well, my comment is that nuclear weapons under the control of fundamentalist Muslims is the greatest threat. (Note that I use the word fundamentalist and not radical, there is no "radical" Islam)

I never claimed that Islamic social reforms in Muhammads day were all bad, only that they were forced upon people after their villages were brutally invaded, men killed, wealth looted, women forced to marry the men who killed their husband in many instances, children enslaved, and were based solely on the "teachings" of the man himself. Hitler had some good social programs, too, as did the former USSR and even Cuba and China...How those programs came to be and at what cost is what I disapprove of.

Equating Islam in Muhammads day to "a political situation" is completely valid as they were one in the same. To an extent, they still are. Islam did not differentiate itself from politics then and only does so now in countries where it is still in the minority. Sharia law is the objective of Muslims everywhere, be they moderate or fundamental. Islam is as much a political movement as it is a religious one.

It is absolutely true that there is much violence in the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah, however, Islam claims the Quran to be the final, perfect word of God that is to be followed to the letter, while those other texts are "corrupted".

How many busses, trains, grocery stores, schools, mosques, etc. are bombed in the name of Christianity?

How many Planes are hi-jacked or hostages taken in the name of Judaism?

There are over 300 known Islamic terror organizations. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of splinter groups. The Pope did nothing more than read from a historic text refuting the "religion of peace" claim and what happened? Worldwide violence by the "peace" lovers. Churches bombed internationally, calls for the assassination of the Pope, etc. Way to prove the "peaceful" nature of Islam, eh?
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Btw Solarman, humorously enough, religionofpeace.com is a site dedicated to correcting misconceptions about Islam. Your hate site is thereligionofpeace.com.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mahjonga 9 years ago
mahjonga
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by steveperry 9 years ago
steveperry
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Descartes 9 years ago
Descartes
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by MMnumber99 9 years ago
MMnumber99
Solarman1969rwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03