The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
The Contender
Iamnotareligiousnutjob
Pro (for)

Islam is a civilized religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Iamnotareligiousnutjob has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/29/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,505 times Debate No: 102290
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Mikal

Con

This is a debate challenge to Cassie on a forum post she made. The resolution is

"Islam is a civilized religion"

The definitions for the debate are as follows

(1) Islam - the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

(1A) - This is not a debate on a specific type of Islam, but Islam as a whole.

(2) Civilized - Having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.

(2A) It is impossible to nail the precise definition of this in the context of the discussion. But the goal is to be able to show that Islam is humane, promotes the well-being of others, is culturally advanced, uses humane practices, etc. This is in comparison to the rest of the world and what is established as *normative*. Again civilized entails humane practices that promote social equality etc.

(3) Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

(3A) This also correlates to how Islam functions in society due it being religious. I'm using this term because it was in the thread. The purpose is to show that Islam is civilized on a normative scale.




The rules and structure are as follows


Structure

(1) Cassie is making an affirmative claim, so the BOP rests on her. She will start her arguments in the first round and pass in the final round. If this is not acceptable, she is welcome to send the debate challenge as she is affirming the resolution.


Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.
8. No "K's" on the topic.
9. Do not undermine the spirit of debate.I already said no semantics but any attempt to take this topic away from the purpose of the initial discussion will result in a FF. The thread can be found below for reference.



http://www.debate.org...


Best of luck


This debate will be moderated by the normative standards of moderation. An RFD explaining your vote be required along with a proper explanation on why points are awarded.




Iamnotareligiousnutjob

Pro

ur gay for licking muslims baitch
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

Resending this to Zaro as this was intended for her.

As my adversary has found a way to bipass the criteria when this was meant for Zaro, I'll take this as a ff on his part because per the first round this acceptance was for her only
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mharman 2 months ago
Mharman
You realize you could've just directly sent her the challenge, right?
Posted by Yassine 2 months ago
Yassine
- This should've been mine.
Posted by Mikal 8 months ago
Mikal
It's a valid objection but again the person I'm challenging made an affirmative claim which I'm contesting. I understand your thoughts though
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 8 months ago
TheUnexaminedLife
I understand that; I just wanted to highlight how I thought it was flawed nonetheless.
I agree with taking a holistic approach to religion but to treat it as a 'whole' when it is by nature a fragmented enterprise to me seems erroneous. It would be like debating whether 'football' as a whole is beneficial for society, which I think is far too complex and diverse to be considered as a whole. You will naturally be debating certain salient parts of the religion you think relevant. This won't produce an overall perspective.

You could debate specific issues, like: does believing in a supernatural, theistic Allah overall produce more harm than benefit in the Middle East? As this is a private debate, I won't say any more but still object to it.
Posted by Mikal 8 months ago
Mikal
Your entire post is not relevant. This debate was framed off a previous forum thread and the resolution was chosen because of that thread. It was the verbiage and intent

Also there is no other way to do the debate without Islam as a whole. You weigh in on the religion and how it impacts society from an overall perspective. You can't single out one sect of Islam when the resolution is framed to encompass it as a whole.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 8 months ago
TheUnexaminedLife
I disagree with your definitions 1A, 2 and 3.
1A you cannot reduce Islam to a single position; I realise this is to avoid the implicit suggestion that ISIS are representative of all Muslims, but nor can you say that ISIS aren't 'real' Muslims. There is no one core position in the religion, a 'pure Muslim', all denominations of faith can be compared by. I think your definition could be amended if you added the world 'statistical' prior to the word 'whole' thereby limiting all responses to figures very susceptible to partisan corruption.

2 Being 'advanced' or 'humane' are very vague criteria. And, moreover, I don't like the implication that Islam is either 'barbaric' or 'civilised'; this has a very colonist undertone. It suggests that say, tribal communities aren't civilised because they aren't 'advanced' (whatever you mean by that word, technological or not) and don't conform to our values as a society.

3 is reductive and wrong. Don't forget the ritualistic elements of religion that are really the crux of debate-- the practices they occur because of these beliefs. 'A superhuman controlling power', could include aliens, excludes deists and sects of Islam who don't believe in a directly 'controlling' God and moreover, believing in 'a superhuman controlling power', means that those who believe in natural laws governing the universe are religious.

Nevertheless, good luck on the debate. Respond if you want to defend your definitions... I might have misinterpreted.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.