The Instigator
92nida
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Hello-Orange
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Islam is not Terrorism.

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,468 times Debate No: 18051
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

92nida

Pro

Everywhere that I see Muslims are treated like they are sinners, Why is terrorism now exclusively used for the Muslims? Is that right?
I think that it is not and it is about time things change. Anyone who disagrees is welcome for a healthy debate...!
Hello-Orange

Con

= Disclaimer =
I would like to note before beginning, that the side I am debating is not my true belief. However, I am debating the con in this debate to expand my viewpoint, and to argue things I don't necessarily believe.

All of that said I will now get into the actual debate portion of the round

= Introduction =
I thank my opponent for initiating a debate on such a controversial topic. Since my opponent has only presented the basic idea of her case, and not actually presented any arguments; Nor will I. Instead I will do the same as my opponent and simply present the basic idea behind my case.

I believe that Islam is Terrorism. After the twin tower bombings of 9/11, Americans (as well as people of other nationalities) became naturally weary of Muslims. Despite what individual Muslims, or Islamic doctrine says in and of itself, the perception of Islam makes it terrorism.

= Closing remarks =
Again, here's to a wonderful and stimulation debate!
Debate Round No. 1
92nida

Pro

Well.. Hello! Thank you for accepting the debate and I understand that we are both here in order to expand our knowledge. And I'd like to add that any argumentation we share will not be taken personally by me. And my motto is to understand why exactly things are the way they are taken.

Islam, is a religion as we know... And does it propagate terrorism? That is something we do not know... How is it possible for any one to be able to accuse an entire community just because a portion of them have showcased certain extremism for certain reasons.. Terrorism is a separate word and Islam is to different reference. What happened in 9/11 is still a mystery, hence it will be inappropriate of me to comment on it since the involvement of Al-Qaeda in it is just an assumption.
' the perception of Islam makes it terrorism.'
You say.. But, what the perception brings is hardly what matters. Perception can be an illusion, it can be false. It can be something that your made to see. Facts that are hidden are hardly before us... The facts that instigated the extreme acts. First of all... Terrorism in Islam began as a freedom movement to suppress certain other policies that formed a threat to their kind. All of that is forgotten.
Secondly. ignoring all and the things regulated those certain acts also of all that kind it is preposterous to see each and every individual of Islam with suspicion. Is every Lady and every man involved in it? A lot of them are victims and have been victims.
Was it right to mass murder all the Jews for whatever the reason Hitler claimed?
Hello-Orange

Con

= Introduction =
I thank my opponent for her opening round arguments!
Also, I thank my opponent for graciously understanding that this debate will be one centered on understanding, and thought. I believe that this is going to be fantastic round!

= Arguments =
As a brief road map, I'm going to be presenting two Con arguments, and then proceed to attack the Pro stance.

Con-
1. Free Thought-
a. Perception-
In any just society, it is imperative that the constituents have the right to have their own opinions and thoughts about an idea. Accordingly individuals are entitled to have whatever view they desire on any political ideal, philosophy, religion, or any other idea that is not beyond the shadow of a doubt true.
b. Absolutes-
The cornerstone of Islam, as well as any Abrahamic religion, is faith. What this means, is that Islam is not a religion where the Koran is based on Fact. Meaning that everything written in the Koran, or that is a part of Islam as a whole is completely and utterly subject to the scrutiny and perception of those around them.
c. Terrorism-
From the Koran 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
Here we see that the Koran tells those of the Islamic faith to kill those they perceive as idolaters. As some-one who is not a Muslim, I would certainly see this call to take my life as terrorism.

2. 9/11
This event is a painful one in the hearts of all Americans, but all the same one absolutely necessary when speaking on this issue. Simply put, this even not only was a blatant act of terrorism, but is attributed to a group Islamic extremists. Linking this to argument 1 point b, and we see that Islam is definitely terrorism. And while others may hold to the Islamic faith in a less radical way, the fact remains that there was an Islamic group who committed these acts.

Furthermore linking to point a of my first argument, the very perception of this event is enough to qualify it as terrorism.

Pro-
+ To the argument on Al Qaeda's involvement in 9/11; from CNN.com [1] "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, planned to have nine of the planes crash into the FBI and CIA headquarters, the Pentagon and the White House, as well as nuclear plants and the tallest buildings in California and Washington state."

+ To the argument on perception, I want to make a direct extension from my own first argument,

+ To the argument that it is preposterous to see every member of the Islamic faith with suspicion, that is blatantly untrue. In fact the fact that my opponent can even make this argument only makes my perception argument stronger; While my opponent feels this to be ridiculous, it is a sacred right of individuals to choose for themselves what they believe on any given subject.

+ To the Hitler arguments; that's both irrelevant, and not even a completely founded argument.
a. Hitler has nothing to do with Islam, his inclusion in this debate is simply a trigger word that kills correct logical exchange of ideas.
b. Second, it makes the assumption that Hitler was wrong for what he did to the Jews. While in all reality that is simply a belief; An albeit widely held and logically sturdy belief, but still only a belief.
c. By my opponent singling out one German man as she has, she completely contradicts every argument she has made thus far.

= Conclusion =
For all of these reasons, and many more which will occur in round two, I urge a Con vote!
Again, a huge thank you to my opponent for his debate.

= Sources =
[1] http://articles.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
92nida

Pro

"In any just society, it is imperative that the constituents have the right to have their own opinions and thoughts about an idea. "
Even if it means adverse effects on the people of the same community?
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"What this means, is that Islam is not a religion where the Koran is based on Fact."
What facts are we referring to? This is not a debate of creationism or evolution. It is about terrorism.
We do not require the assistance of some supernatural entity to assist our research. It is a fact that there are rules, who cares where they came from? It is a fact that certain barriers are followed, certain rules are being misused.. Now that is the fact that we are fighting about... Not where it came from.

"Here we see that the Koran tells those of the Islamic faith to kill those they perceive as idolaters."
Is that really the kinda terrorism we have today? Is that really the reason. It all started differently... Like I told earlier..
This, what they call Jihad is a result of a freedom struggle.
Hinduism talks of slaughter to those who decline faith... Is Hinduism also terrorism?!

"As some-one who is not a Muslim, I would certainly see this call to take my life as terrorism."
Really? All the Muslims on this planet have to wear a board that they are terrorists?

", the fact remains that there was an Islamic group who committed these acts."
.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=btis&gclid=CIypie2B-qoCFc966wod2VyCGQ

I'd like to apologize, for I'm unable to make complete arguments as a result of schedule disturbances.
And, also thank for all that was contributed, every cynical point made has helped me enhance.
Thank you,
And my apologies.
Hello-Orange

Con

= Rebuttals =
+"Even if it means adverse effects on the people of the same community?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.globalresearch.ca... "
++ The first link is just a movie; a fictional movie I might add.
++ The second link is highly biased, how can we possible say that these measures are not viable, and completely warranted when human lives are in danger>

+ "What facts are we referring to? This is not a debate of creationism or evolution. It is about terrorism.
We do not require the assistance of some supernatural entity to assist our research. It is a fact that there are rules, who cares where they came from? It is a fact that certain barriers are followed, certain rules are being misused.. Now that is the fact that we are fighting about... Not where it came from."
++ My argument has been completely ignored, please extend my prior point across.

+ "Is that really the kinda terrorism we have today? Is that really the reason. It all started differently... Like I told earlier..
This, what they call Jihad is a result of a freedom struggle.
Hinduism talks of slaughter to those who decline faith... Is Hinduism also terrorism?!"
++ My opponent doesn't actually refute this argument, they've simply shown Hinduism to be terrorism as well.

+ "Really? All the Muslims on this planet have to wear a board that they are terrorists?"
++ My opponent is blowing my argument out of proportion; I've simply expressed concern for my life, am I to have my right of speech stripped from me as well?

+ ".org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=btis&gclid=CIypie2B-qoCFc966wod2VyCGQ"
++ The link is broken

= Conclusion =
Please Vote Con :-D
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Just1Voice 5 years ago
Just1Voice
Without any desire to point a finger here, I have to say that the debate suffers from a lack of definition.

It might have helped both sides to define just what terrorism is. I don't think Hello-Orange was defining terrorism as "perception" when he made the point that the "the perception of Islam makes it terrorism" as this would have made the entire argument relative to any persons individual perception.

Without a substantive point or resolution to debate over, constructing and organizing the arguments for a debate becomes an exercise in futility.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Are you saying simply that "islam is not terrorism" or that "not all muslims are terrorists", as implied by your opening round? Either way, I don't see why anyone would argue that.
Posted by Joseph_Mengele 5 years ago
Joseph_Mengele
I would take this, but I may be doing another debate, and if I take that other debate I won't accept this. But if I don't accept that other debate i'll take this one.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I can't think of anyone on this site that would actually take this (other than one of our few trolls).
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
92nidaHello-OrangeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Con
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
92nidaHello-OrangeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters should learn to structure the debate by theme rather than point-by-point. Both should also be careful they rebut the issues raised by the opponent, not the manner in which they were issued or the examples used. Overall this was a very close debate. Aff showed the words are distinct, con showed that words have relative meaning. Aff seemed to accept this. Then the clash was on whether Islam connotes terrorism. In this, con had a far more compelling narrative (9/11 etc). Close debate.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
92nidaHello-OrangeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Stupid debate, though con at least debated like a human being.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
92nidaHello-OrangeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: SnG is obvious. Con had the harder argument and handled it better. Neither side made much use of sources but Pro's sources were more numerous and better.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
92nidaHello-OrangeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a terrible debate, no one particularly deserves praise. Con at least attempted to make a case, the quotation of 9:5 was massively out of context to the point of deceit but Pro was too lazy to challenge it.