The Instigator
bluefreedom23
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Islam is currently more dangerous to world peace and free thought than any other religion

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 9 votes the winner is...
bluefreedom23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,389 times Debate No: 8171
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (9)

 

bluefreedom23

Pro

Islam is currently more dangerous to world peace and free thought than any other religion because: 1) it suppresses the equal rights of women more than any other religion, 2) its followers are more often intolerant of criticisms or dissent leveled against it than are the followers of any other religion, 3) its followers are demonstrably more inclined to violence and intimidation tactics when faced with criticism or dissent than are the followers of any other religion.

These are the broad categories supporting my thesis, each of which has it's own supporting arguments. I eagerly await my opponent's opening comments.
wjmelements

Con

The resolution is in need of defining:
Islam-the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah http://dictionary.reference.com...
dangerous- full of danger or risk http://dictionary.reference.com...

Because "world peace" is unattainable, with my opponent's permission, I suggest a change of this to "global tranquility", which means worldwide peacefulness. http://dictionary.reference.com...

My opponent brings to the table 3 complaints that he believes make Islam dangerous to global tranquility and free thought:
1. Suppression of women's rights
2. Intolerance in the face of criticism
3. Violence in the face of criticism

The first point should be eliminated, because suppression of women's rights is not dangerous to world peace and free thought.
The second point of intolerance follows the same guidelines, as intolerance to religious criticism is not a threat to global tranquility and is not a threat to free thought.
The third point is the result of a common misconception. The violent reactions of radical Islam to Islam and the West (http://www.ashbrook.org...) are not proof that the whole of Islam is dangerous to global tranquility and free thought.

What the resolution really calls for though is for me, the contender, to do is to propose a religion that is a greater threat to global tranquility and free thought.
Because a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...), Stalinism counts as a religion.
Stalinism is "an inherently oppressive system of extensive government spying, extrajudicial punishment, and political "purging", or elimination of political opponents either by direct killing or through exile, and it involves a state using extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator to maintain control over the nation's people and to maintain political control for the Communist Party." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

So, Stalinism is a religion because it:
-holds up a system of beliefs with ardor
-holds up a system of beliefs with faith
Ardor, or a restless warmth of feeling, is sometimes felt towards communism. It is forced to be felt under Stalinism. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Faith, or allegiance to a duty or person, is enforced under Stalinism. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
So, Stalinism is a religion.

Stalinism is a current religion and a current threat because it still has followers. 47% of Russians interviewed in a recent study would have a positive outlook on a "new Stalin" coming to power in Russia. http://www.propagandamatrix.com...

Stalinism is a threat to world peace in that it:
-would receive immediate political opposition
-could lead to a new Cold War
With a new Soviet state, communist spread would create a new Cold War.

Stalinism is a threat to free thought in that all dissent is vanquished. This is a greater threat than simple "intolerance" and minority denomination violence.

Clearly, Stalinism is currently a more dangerous religion to world peace and free thought than Islam
Debate Round No. 1
bluefreedom23

Pro

Thank you for your opening arguments. I can accept your submission of global tranquility rather than global peace although I am generally not impressed with arguing over the minutiae of semantics. Having said that may I submit the following amendment?... I wish only to clarify that in stating "free thought" in my opening statement I assumed this to be synonymous with "free speech". I took this to be obvious (as I'm sure you did as well) since no one can actually know what anyone else is thinking anyhow.

First I would like to address your comments on my opening statement.

Your dismissal of my point 1 is done far too hastily. Most religions (particularly Christianity and Islam) take great pains to subjugate women to second-class status, but I argue yes that Islamic women whose rights are suppressed in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa and Asia are not truly free to express their thoughts. If you have any doubt in this I wish to highlight the example of Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I will briefly touch on the points of her life most pertinent to our discussion. In her native Somalia Ms. Ali grew up believing fully in Islam and the writings of the Qur'an. As a five-year old she was genetically mutilated... a practice done to young girls often simply to ensure the victim will never again be capable of experiencing full sexual pleasure. What type of religion inflicts such abuse on 50% of its population merely on the basis of gender? How free to express her thoughts on the matter do you suppose Ms. Ali was before she was violated in this way? (1) On the way to an arranged marriage in Canada Ms. Ali declared asylum in the Netherlands in order to escape marrying someone she did not love. While in the Netherlands Ms. Ali made a film with Theo Van Gogh called "Infidel" in which the gross inequality of women was fully discussed. The film was unanimously decried in the Muslim World (2). Eventually it earned Mr. Van Gogh his death sentence on the streets of Amsterdam... murdered by a young Muslim Dutchman of Moroccan descent. (3) Ms. Ali has lived under constant guard because of the numerous threats she has faced ever since then. Ms. Ali continues to bravely stand up to Islam. She vigorously explains the deplorable status of women in Islam and promotes the need to curtail the unquestioned respect we in the Western World afford it, so I don't ask you to take it from me... take it from this one truly courageous woman. Her life story clearly illustrates all 3 of my points.

You dismissed my point 2 rather flippantly: the idea that intolerance to religion is NOT a threat to world peace or free thought is utterly absurd. Who amongst us is does not edit our own statements in social situations for fear of offending someone else? It happens all the time in matters of simple social norms, but in religious matters it goes much, much further. Intimidation can come in all forms... without laying a hand on you someone can threaten your life... only the truly brave do not submit to this type of bullying... which occurs all the time in the grand arena of world affairs. You may argue smugly in the safety of your own home, and under the protection of your Western nation's freedom of speech laws, that anyone threatened with death still technically has the right to free speech, but in the real world this all-to-often has the effect desired by the bullies who utter such threats. Recall the fury of anger from Muslims worldwide at the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad: the death threats at the cartoonist who drew the cartoon, and the papers who published it. Many papers decided NOT to publish this cartoon because of the death threats of fanatical Muslims. Clearly free speech was defeated in these instances. And how can we truly build a more tranquil world when free speech is suppressed with intimidation?

But lets stop at mere death threats. Let's turn to actual violence.. (point number 3). I have already given the example of Theo Van Gogh. Need I remind you of September 11th, 2001? The Spanish train bombing of 2004? The London metro bombings of 2005? What other religion has recently either directly inspired or aided in the cohersion of young men to commit such atrocities? This is different than situations like in Northern Ireland where the hatred is much more political and less to do with the idea that one side has divine authority behind them. Notice as well the multi-national occurrences. This is not like Hindu-Muslim violence which occurs almost strictly on or near the Indian sub-continent, or the Jewish-Palistinian conflict in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Besides, notice that in both of these examples followers of Islam are one half of the combatants.

You may argue that the young men who commit acts of suicide bombings (and they are almost always young men), are actually acting out for political or social reasons. In this you would partly be correct, but not entirely. We must never lose sight of the fact that they would never have otherwise done these things so willingly, unquestioningly and in such numbers without the promise that God is on their side, that their victims deserve their punishment because they are "Infidels", that they will instantly be transported to a heavenly paradise, and that many virgins await them there...etc.

I acknowledge that the majority of Muslims in the world live morally and peacefully and never dream of doing such things. And every major religion claims to be peaceful and yet harbors its own version of extremists... but in no other religion does the outlying fringe perform such wicked deeds more often and more willingly. Islam has a lot of growing up to do before it truly has my respect. It's leaders must work tooth and nail to discredit those portions of the Qur'an which promote hatred and inequality. It was during Europe's Enlightenment of the 16, 17 and 1800's that Christianity's similar iron grip on society was shaken off... we in the West no longer follow our holy books literally to the same extent as do most Muslims. Islamic culture is long overdue to have its power over its people diminished, much like Christianity has already experienced.

Regrettably, even when (or if) this occurs I fear there will always be Islamic extremists who use the Qur'an to promote their hatred, because within its pages is such an overabundance of quotes which denigrate women, and promote the idea that in reality this world is populated by two kinds of people: the believers... and the infidels. Muslim clerics will protest that these passages are misinterpreted, but this only goes back to the points in my previous paragraph... Islam provides such a fertile breeding ground for the misguided to commit atrocious acts. Surely one cannot argue that in cultures born out of a predominately Christian tradition does such subjugation of women's rights persist, such tolerance for intolerance exist, and such acts of violence be as commonplace.

Finally, I ask you to remember the math involved. Of the world's approximately 6.7 billion inhabitants, there are roughly 2.1 Christians, 1.7 Muslims, and 900 million Hindus... these are the top 3 religions by population. I have already argued many times that Islam is currently far more threatening to world tranquility and free speech than Christianity. If you happen to come up with examples from other religions I ask you to acknowledge the fact that those acts, while despicable, would be greatly outnumbered by those of Islam.

As for your contention that Stalinism is a religion I cannot agree. If you read my note in the "Comments" section of this page you will notice my reply to an earlier debator in which I state I am considering religions only to be those institutions which subscribe to a higher power of some sort. I accept that I did not fully define "religion" in my opening statement. For this reason you may wish to revise your arguments in r
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for a response, though long-winded.
--------------------------------
My opponent has contended that Stalinism is not a religion. He then claims that I should abide by a definition he posted in the comments section. I never agreed to such a definition as "An institution which unifies its members under a shared belief in the existence of at least one divine or supernatural power". Such a definition is not dominant or or preferable over the current because the current definition is sourced and was proposed earlier. There is no reason to change a definition.
----------------------
My opponent has dropped my argument that Stalinism fits the current definition of religion.
----------------------
My opponent concedes that Stalinism is a greater threat to global tranquility and free speech than Islam.
--------------------
My opponent wishes to amend "free thought" to "free speech". I'll accept this definition for practical purposes (1984-brand thought crime).
-------------------------
Free speech means:
-the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion http://dictionary.reference.com...
-----------------------
With this definition, Islam does not affect free speech to the same degree as Stalinism does. In Stalinism, speech is censored by the government. In Islam, the government does not censor free speech or interfere with free speech.

My opponent contends that Islam violates rights to free speech because one may be less likely to voice their opinions in the face of verbal retaliation. However, verbal retaliation is an important part of democratic society and not a violation of free speech.
Intimidation as well is not a threat to free speech when compared to Stalinism, which actually imprisons and kills opposition.

Threats such as the threats to publish a cartoon containing Muhammad are justified. Muhammad is a religious symbol for which Islam considers to be unpublishable. Muslims were right to pressure the magazine not to publish that cartoon and because it was not the government that did this, by definition, free speech was not violated.
-------------------------
My opponent highlights the life of one individual who was exposed to "female genital cutting" http://en.wikipedia.org... . This is a practice of African descent. Wikipedia says that this practice "according to McAuliffe, is not commanded by the Qur'an, and according to Obermeyer, is not practiced by the majority of Muslims."
From this we can conclude that such oppression of women is not an Islamic practice.
-------------------------------
My opponent incorrectly takes tiny factions of Islam and uses them to argue that the whole of Islam is bad. He argues that
-9/11 was endorsed by Islamic beliefs
-other terrorist attacks are based on the Qu'ran
The followers of Radical Islam are but a brainwashed minority who believe they are following the Qu'ran.
Their acts are not based in Islam.
------------------------------------------
I again insist that women are not denigrated in the Qu'ran.
My opponent claims that the Qu'ran "denigrates" women, but provides no evidence.
---------------------------------------
My opponent claims that Islam is more dangerous to global tranquility and free speech because there are 1.7 billion muslims. However, most of these do not oppress women and are not radical extremists.
--------------------------------------
I conclude by saying that all the potential for the suppression of free speech and global tranquility in Islam is meager when compared to the potential of such things from Stalinism.
It seems this debate will only come down to whether or not Stalinism is a religion.

I await a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
bluefreedom23

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his round 2 arguments.

My opponent protests he never agreed to the definition of religion I put in the comments section. So instead he unilaterally puts forth his own definition and expects me to accept this lying down. In his opening arguments he contends Stalinism is a religion and directs us to the Merriam-Websters online dictionary to support his claim, at: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... At this webpage one sees my opponent chose to select the fourth definition, and ignore the first three. Of course for words in which dictionaries list multiple definitions it is protocol that the most widely-accepted or relevant definitions are listed first. The first 2 definitions my opponent ignored support the spirit of my definition of religion. These are:

1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

I will use the Merriam-Webster definition of "religious" so as to clarify this word also, since it was used in the previous definitions. Religious is defined as follows:

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent, zealous

My opponent erroneously claims I conceded "Stalinism is a greater threat to global tranquility and free speech than Islam". I did no such thing. I am disheartened by my opponent's willingness to misrepresent. Instead his strategy seems to be to simply dismiss my arguments with questionable logic and cherry-picked definitions. He then fails to back up his own claims with well-thought-out arguments.

For example, my opponent claims Stalinism is more detrimental to free speech than Islam, but unfortunately he is living in the hypothetical. Despite his citation of ONE study which shows a 47% support for Stalinism in Russia there is still CURRENTLY no Stalinist government there or anywhere else. Therefore there is no government to CURRENTLY enact any of its dictates. Please re-read my original motion.

Instead what we do have currently is a government in Iran (officially the "ISLAMIC Republic of Iran")... of which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President. Just last month Mr. Ahmadinejad gave an inflammatory speech at the UN in which he not-so vaguely cast doubts on the Holocaust. I ask you, how can we even begin to work with such people to build a world of tranquility and peace? What's worse, this divisive speech came after President Obama repeatedly said he wants to work constructively with the Iranians. Even further, this is the same government that currently masquerades it's nuclear program as existing only to meet domestic energy needs, and not to develop atomic weapons. Those in the know have been warning of the consequences if Iran does obtain an atomic bomb. I will supply you but one link to support this... there are many more. http://edition.cnn.com...

The very idea that an Islamic government which has said the state of Israel does not have the right to exist, and continually states the US is an enemy, could soon possess atomic weapons can only be seen as a threat to world peace... by a current government.

I only bring up the example of a current national government because of my opponent's example of Stalinism in Russia... which again does not inform that nation's current political agenda.

By virtue of this fact alone I cannot see how my opponent can logically continue with his argument.

But let me return to how Islam currently affects individuals.

My opponent says "verbal retaliation is an important part of democratic society and not a violation of free speech". The verbal retaliation I talked about was DEATH THREATS. Please don't waste our time by trying to defend the right to threaten another's life... I am confident that you won't.

As if my opponent did not do enough to discredit himself already he goes on to state the following:

"Threats such as the threats to publish a cartoon containing Muhammad are justified. Muhammad is a religious symbol for which Islam considers to be unpublishable. Muslims were right to pressure the magazine not to publish that cartoon and because it was not the government that did this, by definition, free speech was not violated."

Please. I see on your Profile you live in the US of A... the "Land of the Free"... surely you were joking when you wrote that nonsense. People must grow up and accept that sometimes others might say things you don't like, or disagree with you, but you don't kill them over it. Honestly, this is something most people learn as children. Did you forget that these threats were DEATH THREATS? But I forgot... my opponent only considers free speech to be threatened when the threat is sanctioned by a government. Fine. Then surely my opponent hasn't forgotten the 1989 fatwa issued by then Grand Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (the Supreme Leader... actually more powerful than the president) against author Salman Rushdie for writing his book "The Satanic Verses". This is what we're dealing with. What sort of message do you suppose this sends to the entire world's community of authors, journalists, politicians, and all citizens of conscience?

Please visit this web page: http://en.wikipedia.org... , and read the section entitled "Rushdie fatwa". I cannot spare the room to quote it here.

Notice that despite the disagreement amongst the Muslim community regarding the validity of the fatwa, the result was many Muslims did agree it was valid, and ultimately a translator was murdered for his efforts. Anyone who agrees this is justice is a bully and a tyrant.

My opponent protests that most of the 1.7 billion Mulsims live peacefully and I agree. But isn't it always the minority who cause the most damage? Moderate Islam affords shelter to those extremists who wish to cause global unrest, just as moderate Jews and Christians provide an umbrella to their extreme elements.

My opponent claims there is no evidence that the Qur'an demotes women to an unequal status with men. Once again to save space I ask readers to visit the following link: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Some may protest these verses are open to interpretation. That of course is precisely the problem with all religious texts... not just those of Islam... there is rarely 100% agreement on how to interpret the contentious bits. But at the above website you will see myriad quotes which at the very least are ripe for misinterpretation by today's Muslim leaders and citizens. Religions always dress themselves in whatever happens to be fashionable at the time.

My opponent cherry-picks one quote on Wikepedia to say female genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice. Did he fail to notice further down that FGM does not occur AT ALL in Jewish, or Christian cultures? At the very least there is disagreement amongst Muslims regarding it's practice.

I can see why Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights so vigorously against Islam. In fact Ms. Ali states there is NO moderate Islam. Please visit: http://media.www.claremontindependent.com...

To summarize, Stalinism is not a CURRENT threat in any actionable way. I have given many examples of how Islam is a CURRENT threat at international levels (Iran, 911, London transit/Spanish train bombers), and to the lives of individuals (women, authors, etc.). There can be no doubt that no other religion currently threatens global tranquility and free speech more than Islam.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
wjmelements

Con

My opponent insists on using every single letter (to argue something that ultimately is irrelevant, as you will see)... I will do my best to keep this short and to the point.

First, my opponent did concede that Stalinism is a greater threat to global tranquility and free speech because he did not contend that it wasn't. In this manner, he had dropped my case. Simply beginning to bring it up again at the very end is poor conduct and such arguments should not be considered.

Second, my opponent has provided a definition in the final round of this debate. My definition was provided in the first round and was the definition I had agreed to by accepting this debate.

Third, under every definition my opponent provided, Stalinism is a religion. The "Stalin", or political figure, is held in high regards and faith as if he were a god.
The definition of "god" is "one that is worshiped, idealized, or followed", "a powerful ruler or despot", or even "a very handsome man". http://education.yahoo.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Even if you go a different and silly route through the definitions, Stalinism is a religion:
-The government has absolute power
-The government is held with and in high faith
-The government is held with ardor
-The man in power is worshiped
-The government is an "ultimate reality"
-The government is devoted to religiously
-(etc.)
Without a doubt, Stalinism is a religion.

Finally, I do not have to really contend that Islam is terrible, because Stalinism is worse (as conceded by my opponent).

However, I will address my opponent's case nonetheless. (You don't have to read this. Just stop here and vote CON. This is really just for fun.)

"My opponent protests that most of the 1.7 billion Mulsims live peacefully and I agree."
My opponent concedes that most of Islam is not harmful to free speech and free thought.

My opponent claims that the Qu'ran demotes women. This is not a threat to free thought and world peace because women can still speak their minds and no war results.

My opponent claims that I "cherry-picked" my evidence that the Qu'ran does not endorse female genital mutilation; however, his argument against that is logical fallacy:
-Because Jews and Christians do not cut female genitals, the Qu'ran endorses female genital mutilation.
Obviously, this is silly. I have proved that female genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice, but an African tradition.

My opponent then contradicts himself:
-"In fact Ms. Ali states there is NO moderate Islam."
Wait a minute:
-"My opponent protests that most of the 1.7 billion Muslims live peacefully and I agree."
Hmm...

My opponent's argument against something he already conceded, that Stalinism is a current threat, is:
-Because only 70 million people endorse Stalinism, it is not a threat.
As I have already shown, Stalinism would be a threat if that 47% jumped a simple 4 points. Further, it does not take a majority to overthrow a government and install Stalinism. So, yes, Stalinism is currently dangerous to free thought and global tranquility.

My opponent contradicts himself again in saying:
-Islam is a CURRENT threat at international levels (Iran, 911, London transit/Spanish train bombers)
He has already claimed that the majority of Islam is peaceful. This is simply a radical faction with fewer than
Further: ""there is nothing Islamic about terrorism"" http://www.religionnewsblog.com...
Simply put, Islam is not a threat to world peace (while radical Islam is).

My opponent also says that the following are worse than Stalinism. To show how silly this is, I put up a side-by-side comparison:
-women are suppressed (versus) women are enslaved
-authors are threatened (versus) authors are killed
-terrorism (versus) political genocide
-threats against Israel (versus) a second Cold War

To stay brief, I will end here. I used less than half my characters. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Pro, this debate just proves you're ignorant. Thanks for attempting to make my entire religion look bad. Seriously, thanks alot.
Posted by bluefreedom23 7 years ago
bluefreedom23
Hi BA. Thanks for your comment. Sorry for my delayed response. In my humble opinion religion is not nearly as benign as you appear to portray it. A religion brings about "social cohesion" ONLY within the particular social group from which it comes. The rest of the human population of this planet falls into the "OTHER" category. You can provide all the rosy spin and window-dressing you want but at the root of it someone of a differing religion than you believes you are wrong and they belong to the one true faith. Once this crack begins it opens the floodgates to a host of other social ills and ways in which we can justify subduing and oppressing our fellow humans. You said it yourself, "It's a medium to legitimize inhumane acts". So perhaps we agree that all religions provide this artificial division amongst man (and woman) kind. I'm saying our species needs to shed this vestige of our infancy and mature to our "adulthood", by if not eliminating, then at least diminishing the power of religion over the minds and actions of Earth's people. Currently, I argue there is no other religion which levies quite the same influence over its flock as does Islam, and therefore it has been used as a means to achieve politically-motivated terrorism. As for your objections, I don't think we actually disagree on point #1. Yes gender inequality exists in all societies (I have never stated the contrary), but nowhere more and nowhere more widespread than in Islam. The liberation of Muslim women would improve "free thought" moreso than "world peace" as worded in my thesis statement. As for point #2, the speed at which Islam is spreading is irrelevant to this argument, and no I do not think it has been an "injustice" to make the arguments I've made without ever meeting "them". In fact I have met Muslims but that too is irrelevant. The Muslims I am "judging" are the extremists who should be (and in most cases are) judged just as harshly by moderate and liberal-minded Muslims.
Posted by BA 7 years ago
BA
I came across this argument while doing some work and it was of interest to me what your argument was.
I can understand why you see Islam dangerous to world peace especially because most of the conflict in world exists in Islamic countries. However, I disagree with your argument to some degree. Particularly,I disagree with your first two explanations for why it is a threat to world peace.

From your argument, it seems to me that you are not acquainted with Islam beyond the news. In my opinion, religions exist to bring about social cohesion. Ironically, most of the time, religion is used as an ideological explanation for conflict. Religion, in this case Islam, is not always the cause of conflict. It's a medium to legitimize inhumane acts. If Islam didn't exist, conflict would still persist, only the ideological justifications would be different.

As for your first two explanations:
1) Gender inequality exists in all societies. It is the economic structure of certain societies that reinforce gender inequality not religion. Again, poor religion, is used as a justification. Furthermore, most of the time gender inequality is reinforced by culture.
2) Islam is the second fastest growing religion. Don't you think it would be injustice to Muslims if you judge their lack of tolerance or thereof on those you only hear about in news or read about.
Posted by yhubin 7 years ago
yhubin
recently a couple of doctors started investigation the Islamic religion, the reason for this is because each religion, spreads the message of peace, and life, the Islamic religion, how ever spreads the message of death and extinction to different races,

mark my words, Islam is a threat to all of us, and will soon have to be taken care of, this is one of the reasons I am strongly against Obama trying to have close ties wit that the slamic world....
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
C: Pro. Pro can use however many characters he wishes.
S&G: Tie.
A: Pro. Spending so much time on Stalinism as a religion really distracts us away from the resolution; Pro should not have been obligated to waste his and the voters' time on responding to that claim when that claim is not central to the issue at hand.
S: Tie.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
I wanted to debate you on this topic only. But if I am instigating, I would like to change the resolution - so that I can be pro. Give me a little time so that I can plan my opening arguments before setting up the debate.
Posted by bluefreedom23 7 years ago
bluefreedom23
I'm open to a debate, but you'll have to instigate. When I see the resolution statement I'll reserve the right to refuse, or suggest alterations.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
"Personally though I'm much less interested in debating simply to debate... I'd rather believe in the particular position I'm defending, but again that is a personal thing"

Something we have in common. I shall be glad to debate 'con' on this - if you can start another debate challenging me.
Posted by bluefreedom23 7 years ago
bluefreedom23
Done.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Can you change your privacy settings so that friends can send you messages?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sabrafink 7 years ago
sabrafink
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
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 fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
bluefreedom23wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06