The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
UberCryxic
Con (against)
Winning
79 Points

Islam should be banned in the United States on the basis of being a death cult, not a religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 12/26/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,508 times Debate No: 1009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (31)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

the last little Girl who wanted to argue for Shar'ia law in the United States of America rather than our constitution, ran away when I challenged her to a debate on this singlularly most important issue facing the free world.

Flat out, Islam promotes the insurrection against and take over of governments with politics lawyers and then violent force to implement Sha'ria law.

It should be immiediately banned in all free nations.

today.

anyone who wants to argue FACTS on this issue, and not YOUR FEELINGS about it

Feel free to take me on

Any muslim "scholars" out there?
UberCryxic

Con

Hello solarman, I'm not a Muslim scholar, but I'll debate you on this nonetheless. For the sake of argumentation, I'll ignore the palpable extremes in your viewpoint; I really don't have much choice anyway.

The knee-jerk reaction to your argument would be the Constitution, which states that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, whatever that religion may be, or even if someone lacks a religion. Another person commented on this below. However, it is an argument from authority, and as such constitutes a logical fallacy. It is tantamount to using the Bible in arguing that same-sex marriage should be proscribed. Bringing in the Constitution gives the descriptive version of events (how things are); you're talking about the normative, or how things should be, and the Constitution cannot address this latter concern. So this is not my argument, but I wanted to mention why it is not in case anyone scratched their heads. Arguing from authority is a common logical fallacy that people make.

I have several reasons for why Muslims should not be banned from the United States; I will probably not list all of them here, but I'll highlight some of the eminent ones. First, a recurring mistake made on this issue, usually by right-wing ideologues, is ignoring the extent to which American Muslims have been integrated within our society. American Muslims are relatively affluent and generally have no sociopolitical or economic qualms, certainly not like the kind that we see in others nations such as Britain or France. This relative lack of anxiety on their part means that they are highly unlikely to pose a national security threat. They feel content about their position in society and they do not want to jeopardize it.

The second reason follows almost directly from the first. A group of middle-class people that have been thoroughly assimilated is a huge boon to our economy; why would we want to ruin that? Think of all the businesses and communities that would suffer if you just removed millions of people, which is what your argument implies: if you ban Islam, many of its practitioners will not stay in the United States. It's kind of the same thing that happened in Spain in the Late Middle Ages; they banned Judaism and thousands of Jews left.

The third reason elicits the humanitarian position. Would we feel well as a society having eliminated millions of fellow citizens from our own soil? What would happen to them? Such a move, solarman, does not appear congruent with our values as Americans and as human beings.

My overriding concern in this debate is the treatment of Muslim peoples themselves, not necessarily of Islam the religion. I could not give a you-know-what about Islam, being an atheist and all. But I have no illusions that once people started attacking and banning Islam as a religion, the next step would be attacks on its adherents. We've been down this road before; I don't need to mention the multitudes of examples throughout history: you're well aware of them yourself.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

You are making a different argument and you dont seem to understand, which is totally typical of most people

I am not not arguing anything about individual muslims, or what any person wants to believe in private

However, Islam is a death cult, and promotes the overthrow of all governments in favor of a worldwide caliphate based on Sharia law

You probably dont have any idea what Im talking about so let me educate you

from relgionofpeace.com

On 9/11, nineteen committed Muslims believed they had a religious mandate to fly planes into buildings and slaughter thousands of innocent people.
The Muslim world erupted with outrage over this horrible act of mass murder. Massive demonstrations were held in nearly every Muslim country and Western city. At these demonstrations, Muslim leaders harshly denounced Islamic terror and shared the many hundreds of verses from the Qur'an that encourage universal brotherhood, peace and tolerance. A slew of fatwas and clerical condemnations against terror soon followed.

Tens of millions of ordinary Muslims also reacted by rallying against violence and demanding that their leaders root out and eliminate the Islamic terrorists and their supporters. These same Muslims and their clerics called for introspection and atonement, accepting the role that the radical elements of their religion played in the attacks, and committing themselves to combating and eradicating the misinterpretation of their religion - the Religion of Peace...

Well, not quite.

Obviously this didn't happen. If it had, then Islamic terror would have ended, 9/11 would have been a singular event, and this website would not exist.

Unfortunately, the optimistic and fictitious picture that we just painted of Muslim reaction to terror and the predominance of peaceful Qur'anic verses could not be any further from the truth. In fact, some Muslims actually celebrated the attacks, and not just overseas, but even in the offices of the U.S. State Department.

There were a few passionless denunciations, to be sure, but Muslims save their real outrage for times when a Western leader makes a public statement against veils and headscarves, or someone draws a Muhammad cartoon. By and large, most could hardly care less about the thousands of people who lose their lives in the name of this religion each year. It was not for three years, in fact, that there was even a fatwa issued against these attacks. To this day, major Muslim-American groups are very reluctant to denounce Osama Bin Laden by name.

That's what makes it extremely odd that Islam should be called a Religion of Peace. Not only does it inspire an enormous amount of violence, but an astonishing level of indifference and self-centeredness as well.

We watched in the months following 9/11, as Muslim-American groups began to act as hindrances in the war on terror and the efforts of Americans to defend themselves. We saw them ignore nearly every act of daily Islamic terror and instead publicize obscure issues and personal slights against Muslims that are absolutely trivial by comparison.

Far from accepting responsibility for Islamic terror, Muslims look for reasons to shirk it. Some even grasp onto wild conspiracy theories that blame Americans for 9/11 - just as the millions of Jihad victims over the centuries are in some way held responsible for their own slaughter as well.

And finally, we came to realize that this extraordinary arrogance and self-absorption on the part of the Muslim community, along with an inability to empathize with others or engage in the sort of self-critique that leads to moral progress is in no way incidental to the religion.

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with Islam.

Originally, we started this website in the naive hope that perhaps Muslims just didn't realize the extent of the violence that is committed in the name of their religion. Perhaps if they understood, then they might be motivated to turn the critical eye inward and resolve those far more important issues that leave so many lives in agony and force the consumption of so many billions of dollars for security resources.

But, in our first several years of posting attacks, we never once heard from a Muslim who wrote to condemn the violence and resolve themselves to combating it. Neither did we see any change on the part of Muslim-American groups or other Islamic organizations across the globe, even as the body count mounted to levels that far exceed the damage done on 9/11.

And so, our mission is to present the truth about Islam and how it is so tragically different from other religion. We also hope to memorialize the victims of Islamic terror, and ensure that they do not die in obscurity as so many victims of Islam have in the last 1400 years.

For Westerners and others who ask, "Who are Muslims and why do they want to kill me?" we hope to provide answers. For those who swallow the falsehood that Islam is a Religion of Peace, we hope they will find enough reason to at least challenge their preconceptions.

At the same time, we have no patience for name-calling, lies, or acts of violence. No Muslim should be harassed or harmed anywhere in the world because of his or her religion. Islam is a broad faith and every Muslim should be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.

In fact, there are exceptional Muslims whose faith gives them character, as evidenced by their sincere denunciation of terror and tangible resolve to ending it. They stand in sharp contrast to groups like the American CAIR and MPAC Islamic supremacist organizations, which use their influence to complain of petty grievances and inflame hatred against a country that tries hard to accommodate their faith in spite of the violence and whining.

But, as the evidence from this site and verses from the Qur'an prove, Islam is clearly not a religion of peace. The ridiculous level of violence committed in the name of this religion is staggering, despite the many billions of dollars that are spent each year to prevent attacks.

Nor should Westerners continue to think that the solution to the violence is greater understanding and tolerance for Islam, as Muslim apologists often imply when offering rare commentary on high-profile terror attacks. It is the killers and their supporters who need lessons in tolerance and understanding, not their victims.

Some Muslims may say that Muhammad preached love for people of other religions, but there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that commands this, yet there are 493 verses that either tell Muslims to kill unbelievers or that speak to Allah's hatred for them and how they will be tortured in Hell. Non-Muslims are referred to as the "vilest of animals."

If peace is defined as being free to live ones life as one pleases and allowing others to do the same, then Islam is as far from peace as it can possibly be. Where it dominates, there is systematic discrimination and oppression of those of other faiths (dhimmitude, which Muslims ironically refer to as 'tolerance'). Where Muslims are in minority, there is rebellion, terror and disloyalty - a never-ending jihad to bring about Islamic rule, as Muhammad commanded

Here are some of those commands

The Qur'an:

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah

Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
UberCryxic

Con

Thank you for your response, solarman.

Let me clarify the foundations of the debate. Your arguments in the last post are obfuscating and contradictory. You claim that you are only interested in Islam as a religion yet you utter some fairly despicable words against Muslims as individuals. I urge you to read your own comments more carefully. What are we to make of the following statements?

- "By and large, most [Muslims] could hardly care less about the thousands of people who lose their lives in the name of this religion each year."

- "And finally, we came to realize that this extraordinary arrogance and self-absorption on the part of the Muslim community, along with an inability to empathize with others or engage in the sort of self-critique that leads to moral progress is in no way incidental to the religion."

These are direct attacks on the moral character of Muslims worldwide, all one billion of them. In fact, any attempt to separate Islam as a concept from Muslims as individuals would be totally futile. Religions are reified as concrete entities, but in reality they consist of actual people, as do other frequently reified abstract ideas like societies or nations. It is not Islam that 'acts' or Islam that 'does.' Muslims are the actors and the doers, meaning that an attack on Islam is necessarily an attack on Muslims themselves, either physical - as in the bombing of a mosque that offends or kills Muslims - or symbolic and intellectual - as in an argument that lambasts the Islamic religion and its creators and supporters.

The whole point here, and the foundation for my perspective in the debate, is that when you say you are attacking Islam, you are actually attacking Muslims since Islam does not exist as a real thing (only Muslims and their associated creations, which we call 'Islam,' do). As much as you deny it then, you are, in fact, blabbering quite a lot about individual Muslims. This effectively means that, in calling the religion a "death cult," you are also claiming that its members behave like they are in a death cult. What else could you mean, right? And you say such things about Muslim comportment in your post. From that angle, one could understand why you would want to deport Muslims from the United States. The next step in the debate must now be to show that Muslims do not constitute a death cult, which would invalidate your premise and, ultimately, your conclusion that Muslims should be banned from the country.

Your invectives generally smack of bombastic paranoia and ignorance about the complexities of the Islamic religion - or, for that matter, of any religion. Most of the supposed problems that you identify with Islam are not unique to it at all. Cognate accusations can be leveled at other religions, like Christianity or Judaism. Just consider the following Biblical verses:

- "..the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shall smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, on the Israeli invasion of Canaan and the destruction of the people living there.

- "If thou shalt hear say in one of the cities...certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known...[tells them to inquire into veracity of claims]...thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." Deuteronomy 13:12-15, an instruction telling the Israelites to destroy any cities that worshipped false idols.

Quotations with similar themes are found in the New Testament as well. Religious intolerance is not peculiar to Muslims; it is something almost inherent in all genuine votaries. In fact, Christianity has probably been the most intolerant religion in human history. The mass violence committed in the name of Islam pales to that committed in the name of Christianity. The primary mistake that you are making here, however, is in equating the entire religion - its people and their tenets, rituals, and practices - with the absurd actions of a few extremists (terrorists). The vast majorities of Muslims are not terrorists and do not support terrorist actions. Several major Muslim leaders throughout the world have also denounced the crimes and concomitant ideologies of people like Osama bin Laden.

That aside, I notice that we have not yet gotten to the crux of the debate: blaming only religion for actions and situations that have multifarious sources, sometimes including or excluding religion itself. Eschewing the problem of "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter," terrorist actions are not solely inspired by religion. Just for everyone's knowledge, there are also plenty of Christian terrorist groups, so it's not like terrorism is confined to Muslims. Much of the problems that we are discussing are largely political in nature, not religious. Blaming religion, and in this case Islam, definitely serves as a political expedient for some people who have an axe to grind. To fully understand the causes of modern Islamic terrorism, we have to understand modern Islamic history and how it has been shaped through contacts with Western powers. I will in no way give a comprehensive description of that history, mainly because there is not enough space or time, but the relevant point is that Muslims feel like Western powers have besieged their societies for decades, both with soft and hard power tactics and strategies. A sense of alienation grips them, or some of them, and this then incites violence among extremists. That's their version of the story anyway; it has some merits, but I myself do not fully endorse it, partly because religious incentives do play a key role towards reeling in disillusioned youth, among others. Clearly, however, the answer is more complicated than you are portraying: religion is not the only instigator here.

The two main themes of my argument are that an attack on an abstruse concept like Islam necessarily invites an attack on practitioners and that religion is not the only cause for terrorism. The whilom point implies that banning Islam as a religion in the United States would necessarily lead to the deportation of Muslims. The second implies that squarely blaming Islam for terrorism is an inaccurate apprehension of our problems, meaning that even if we banned Muslims from the United States, we would still not have resolved the fundamental issues driving international terrorism. Ergo, there would still be terrorist attacks against the United States.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Well, you , in typical fashion, regurgitate the typical BS that is put out by the liberals like ROSIE O DUMBELL "radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam"

Ok lets totally pick apart your arguments

(1) an attack on Islam is necessarily an attack on Muslims themselves, either physical - as in the bombing of a mosque that offends or kills Muslims

what are you implying here? that WE and our armed forces BOMB MUSLIMS? HA!

Who do you think bombed the golden shrine in Samarra? how about the markets? how about the trains in India and England and Spain?

who killed Bhutto today and tried the other month, killing hundreds of innocent muslims in the procession of well wishers, by strapping a bomb to a baby and offering the baby toward her ?

who has perpatrated the 10255 terror attacks (that we know about) since 9/11, and the 34 that happened last week alone?

Answer : MUSLIMS

next argument by you -------

The whole point here, and the foundation for my perspective in the debate, is that when you say you are attacking Islam, you are actually attacking Muslims.
This effectively means that, in calling the religion a "death cult," you are also claiming that its members behave like they are in a death cult. What else could you mean, right?

Yes this is precisely what I mean

Who straps bombs to their kids, has then blow themselves up, murder dozens of innocents, then proclaim them are a martyr, afford them the highest possible honor, and say that they will have 72 virgins to defile when they get to Satan?

Uhmmmmmmmm - Muslims !

If this isnt a death cult, a cult that worships death, I dont know what is

your next argument

Religious intolerance is not peculiar to Muslims; it is something almost inherent in all genuine votaries. In fact, Christianity has probably been the most intolerant religion in human history. The mass violence committed in the name of Islam pales to that committed in the name of Christianity.

Ok here you are just plain wrong, and I will point out two different angles.

#1 Islam has been far more violent in history than Christianity- even at its worst

Something happened to turn good men bad. For the first 3,000 years of recorded history the Bedouins of Arabia were self-reliant, peace- and freedom-loving peoples. They conquered no one. Then at the dawn of the seventh century everything changed. These Arabs, now Muslims, became the planet's most ruthless militants. They conquered the civilized world, plundering and taxing it for booty. They left oceans of blood and dictatorial tyrannies in their wake.

Christianity civilized the world.

Agents of Christ teaching about one God and his son and the teachings of love, compassion and helping others, sacrificed their compfortable lives to go to places afar where savagery, cannibalism and many Gods ruled, and told them of a different way- they taught reading and writing, how to farm, and the formation of fair and rational government. Judeo-Christian values civilized the world, and taught their is something HIGHER than man.

#2 Violence committed in the name of Christ is CONTRARY to what he taught, and it is in COMPLETE ACCORD with the teachings of Mohammed

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist.

Christ was an enlightened being that taught to love, compassion, and to turn the other cheek against violence. He never hurt a flea, or told anyone to, and quite the contrary, taought the opposite of violence, lust, and greed.

You are simply spewing the garbage that you are fed from the liberal media, who hate Christians and their conservative values. Ditto for public school teachers for the most part.

your next absurd point -----------------

The primary mistake that you are making here, however, is in equating the entire religion - its people and their tenets, rituals, and practices - with the absurd actions of a few extremists (terrorists). The vast majorities of Muslims are not terrorists and do not support terrorist actions

this is, again, more liberal nonsense poppy cock - here is some education

How Many Muslims Are Terrorists?

I am often asked to guess as to how many Muslims are jihadists. The easiest answer is: enough to commit the terrorist acts detailed in the 1,000-page-long Islamic Terror Timeline.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net...

The most logical way to determine the percentage of Muslims who are salafi/fundamentalists - a precondition to jihad - is to consider the most recent elections in Islamic countries. For example, the fundamentalist Islamic group HAMAS received 65% of the popular vote in "Palestine." The somewhat secular Fatah, at least by comparison to HAMAS, won only 30% of the votes.

The newly elected fundamentalist Islamic nutcase ruling Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, earned 62% of the popular vote. The most moderate Islamic challenger garnered less than twenty percent support.

If the 60% response levels derived from polling data is an accurate reflection of the current state of Islam, then sex and age criteria further reduce Islamic terrorist candidates down to a maximum of one in every seven Muslims - 25% of 60%. That means that no more than 15% of the total Islamic population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion people has the potential to be a terrorist should the opportunity arise. That equates to a minimum of 180 million potential jihadists and a maximum of 225 million.

But when it comes to actual jihadists, to those who have or will commit an act of terrorism in Allah's name, my research suggests that they represent no more than one in one hundred of the 180 million young fundamentalist Muslim men prepared mentally, morally, and spiritually to be terrorists. That means that there are 1.8 million actual Islamic jihadists on the planet today - a number which could jump one hundred fold almost instantaneously should the opportunity arise.

Before you get a warm and cozy feeling, thinking that only 60% of Muslims are sufficiently indoctrinated in fundamentalist Islam to be a terrorist should the opportunity arrise, and that only 25% of those Muslims are the appropriate age and sex to actually engage in jihad, let's consider some recent historical events. In 1917, less than 3% of Russians were Communists. Yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by an immoral and ruthless religion (Socialist Secular Humanism), they quickly came to oppress the entire nation - murdering 30 million Russians in the process. In 1924, less than 3% of Germans were Nazis. And yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by Hitler's "People's Religion" as it was immorally and ruthlessly laid out in Mein Kampf, that 3% came to oppress the entire nation and led the world into a war that killed 50 million people.

Also keep in mind that while only 15% of Muslims are potential jihadists today, that percentage is growing rapidly. Thanks to OPEC funding and clerical indoctrination, the Islamic world is becoming increasingly fundamentalist. In twenty years most Muslims could be terrorists - and probably will be.

your final point-----------------------------------------

Eschewing the problem of "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter," terrorist actions are not solely inspired by religion. Just for everyone's knowledge, there are also plenty of Christian terrorist groups, so it's not like terrorism is confined to Muslims.

Clearly, however, the answer is more complicated than you are portraying: religion is not the only instigator here

OK, GENIUS.

OTHER THAN ISLAM, PLEASE GIVE ME REASONS WHY MUSLIMS KILL, TERRORIZE, RAPE, SUPPRESS WOMEN, THREATEN OTHERS, HIJACK PLANES, ETC.

After all ,THEY say that the Qu-ran and Allah is 100% why
UberCryxic

Con

You misunderstood the point of my argument about an attack on Islam being an attack on Muslims as individuals. Obviously Muslims have attacked other Muslims, like Christians have attacked other Christians, but this fact is irrelevant in the context of that point. I was trying to show that it is silly to think about tangible attacks on an abstract entity like Islam - the people hurt or affected, no matter who perpetrates the violence, Muslims or non-Muslims, are Muslims themselves. Your whole response here corresponds to a strawmen argument: a position invented by your imagination for the sake of disputation.

Next you acknowledge that you are claiming that Muslims behave as if they are in a death cult. Well, that means you are attacking the sanity of Muslim people, along with their fundamental character and morality, among other things. Your statements here perpetuate the intellectual summersaults that run rampant in your arguments. In your second post, you clearly stated, "I am not arguing anything about individual Muslims," but that's exactly what you're doing! You're arguing against Muslim individuals by describing the ethos of their lives with vitriolic and defamatory rhetoric. Either your positions are highly inconsistent or, as I suspect is more likely, you are unable to clearly express them, a fact that causes problems both for you and for me, your fellow debater tirelessly yearning to understand and decipher your addled remarks.

If we are doing strict body counts - that is, for how many deaths do Muslims and Christians shoulder responsibility - and ignoring innumerable problems involving context, motivation, and identification, than Christianity has obviously been more violent. But this is all a silly game; Christianity has been more violent because the sociopolitical institutions supporting its growth have been more focused and well-organized, facilitating superior abilities to inflict pain and suffering. It hasn't been more violent because its message is more violent; I'm not saying that Islam is a better religion than Christianity, just for the record. They both have serious flaws and some mild benefits.

The assertion that Christianity civilized the world is almost patently phantasmagoric. The world was plenty civilized before the arrival of Christianity. In fact, the root word for the English 'civilization' is the Latin 'civis,' which means 'city.' This bit of etymology means to show that civilizations fundamentally consist of cities and urban agglomerations, which were not given to humanity by Christians.

Your fiction about violence committed in the name of Christ also applies to violence committed in the name of Islam. All of these religions fundamentally preach love, peace, and tolerance, the same ideas they often ignore in practice.

Your speculation on the number of Muslim terrorists and jihadists reveals nothing useful because it lacks accuracy. The figures themselves are completely bogus; the actual number of jihadists amounts to something like a few thousand, and the potential for growth in the short-term is not notable. And what's more, using a discredited site with an overtly biased and irrational agenda does not speak well for your investigative capacities.

I already explained some of the non-religious factors driving terrorism when I mentioned history in my last post. The West has had a complicated relationship with the Muslim world in the twentieth century, in many ways a continuation of previous journeys. American meddling in Iranian affairs, for example, caused the outrage and the revolution that led to the hostage crisis, a crisis that severely damaged the relationship between the two countries....and that inspired several terrorist acts later on. Keep in mind that I do not completely absolve Islam of blame; I am just saying that religion is one piece of a larger jigsaw puzzle. It does not make sense to blame Islam entirely for problems that have deeper roots. Due to this fact, and others highlighted above, I conclude that Islam and Muslims should not be banned from the United States because banning them would not resolve the challenges we face.
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 30 records.
Posted by zarul 6 years ago
zarul
I have seen so-called translations on the internet that do misuse words and take things out of context. That is my point, that you cannot know the difference if you cannot actually read Arabic.
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
My objection isn't that you can't have a superior reading in Arabic. My objection is to your clear indication that you believe you can't have an acceptable reading in English. I don't read Greek or Hebrew but I have a pretty good understanding of the Bible. Just as I don't speak Japanese but I think I got the gist of Godzilla.
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Sure, and the counter argument to this debate could have just said that the United States first amendment prevents the US from banning death cults. Even if the premise were true, it would have to fail. -- Did he bother. No. Should he have. No.
Posted by zarul 6 years ago
zarul
As for criticizing it without knowing the language, Tatarize, I'm sure you would agree that someone who knows Arabic, and has read the Quran, would have a better idea on what it says than someone who has read an English translation.
Posted by zarul 6 years ago
zarul
I could have put Turkey for just about all of them actually.
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
#3 was women's rights not human rights. The answer is Turkey.
Posted by zarul 6 years ago
zarul
1. United Arab Emirates (free, though not democracy)
Indonesia
Malaysia
Morocco (to a certain extent)
Iran (to a certain extent)
India has more Muslims than any other country in the world, although, and it is free.

I could name more, but I'm getting bored.

2. What are you talking about?

I know the Iraq War wasn't started by Muslims.
The war between Israel & Lebanon wasn't started by Muslims.
America declared war on Afghanistan, not the other way around.

3. What do you mean by human rights?

In Muslim countries, even dogs have rights, so you're being pretty damn ambiguous.
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
name for me one free nation that is muslim__________

name for me one current shooting war that doesnt involve muslims attacking someone _______________

name for me one muslim nation with womens rights________

this is just for starts

If you want to debate me on this subject, challenge me
Posted by mjvoss 6 years ago
mjvoss
Just research and sooner or later, you will wake up to what I am talking about.
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
just watch the news and sooner or later you will wake up to what I am talking about
31 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PuneRider 4 years ago
PuneRider
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 billboard 6 years ago
billboard
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 desk19 6 years ago
desk19
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 buttercupx224 6 years ago
buttercupx224
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 patriots16-0 6 years ago
patriots16-0
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 Keithinator 6 years ago
Keithinator
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 invertman 6 years ago
invertman
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 mjvoss 6 years ago
mjvoss
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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 rwebberc 6 years ago
rwebberc
Solarman1969UberCryxicTied
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