The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is the best interests of Muslim refugees in Europe to convert to Christianity

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 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 82379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

imabench

Pro

I will argue that it is in the best interests of the Muslim refugees flocking into Europe to convert to Christianity. Con will argue that it would NOT be in the immigrants' best interest to convert to Christianity.

3 rounds, 3000 characters, 24 hours between rounds

Arguments:



1) Deporting the refugees after converting could technically be a criminal act and illegal

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...

Many refugees in Germany are converting from Islam to Christianity. According to the article:

"In Afghanistan and Iran, for example, conversion to Christianity by a Muslim could be punished by death or imprisonment, and it is therefore unlikely that Germany would deport converted Iranian and Afghan refugees back home."

If Muslims convert to Christianity, they could face persecution if they are deported to countries where conversion to another religion is illegal, depending on the country. EU nations are not allowed to deport people back to a country if they are likely to be persecuted there, which means EU nations would be more inclined to keep newly converted Christian immigrants than still native Muslim ones..... While this wouldn't guarantee that converted immigrants get accepted into Germany, it would at least prevent them from being sent back home first, and likely just sent to some other country in the EU sooner or later. Converting to Christianity would therefore be a good idea since it could give some refugees an edge in not being deported back to the Middle East, and eventually be accepted into a country in the EU.



2) No one would 'really' know if they converted or not.

According to the pastor in the German church carrying out conversions, "[Converted Refugees] are so taken by the Christian message that it changes their lives." And he estimates that only about 10 per cent of converts do not return to church after christening.... However, no one can really know if the immigrants converted their faith, or are just faking it, and since only the immigrants will know, so its a win-win for them! They could secretly keep to their prior faith, yet use their faith to prevent being sent back to the hellhole country in the middle east they came from.



3) One less argument for bigots to use against the immigrants.

Many of the people who oppose the EU letting in immigrants are your run of the mill dumba** conservatives who spend their time throwing rocks at minorities since they got rejected from community college. One of the reasons they oppose letting in people from the Middle East is their religion, Islam, which is considered a 'backwards' religion, unlike Christianity, which only goes crazy when coffee cups are not the approved color for celebrating Christmas, IN NOVEMBER.... If refugees 'convert' to Christianity though, it will be one less point of protest for stupid people to use against letting them immigrate into the EU.
Yassine

Con

I thank Pro for instigating the debate. This is my first debate with the legendary heisabench, I feel exited. Let’s have some fun. :)




Case:



I. Submission vs. Liberty


- It is evident that Liberty (from others) is a superior value to Submission (to others). Given that, in the case of refugees, preserving one’s own faith is but an extension of one’s Liberty, & abandoning one’s faith under pressure is but a form of Submission, It is thus evident that refugees preserving their faith is a superior outcome to them abandoning it.

=> Therefore, it is in the best interest of Muslims to stand tall & preserve their faith.



II. From persecution to persecution!


- It is rather gruesome to have a people sacrifice their lifestyle, flee from affliction, leave their homes, & then be welcomed by another people only then to feel the need to sacrifice more of what they hold dear (their own faith) just to be accepted!




Rebuttals:



1) Deporting the refugees after converting could technically be a criminal act and illegal


- One, deporting refugees is in itself, technically, a criminal act. Refugees are, by definition, seekers of asylum from persecution. In that respect, converting to Christianity does literally nothing to change that, for better or worse.

=> Therefore, Con’s argument here is completely unwarranted, & its premise pointless.


- Two, most refugees are not from Afghanistan or Iran. For instance, between 2014 & 2015, refugees from Afghanistan & Iran constituted less than 10% of the total of asylum applicants in the EU. Syrian refugees alone made up over 20% of these applicants [1].

=> Therefore, this argument here doesn’t even apply to most refugees.


- Three, regardless of wether these alleged punishments take place or not, if refugees flee with their beliefs from persecution just to renounce their religion thereafter, then there is no point in holding on to it in the first place!



2) No one would 'really' know if they converted or not.


- Professing the Christian faith while secretly holding to the Islamic faith is only permissible under mortal danger. Since in EU nations, refugees are permitted, by law, to adhere to their own religion without fear of mortal danger, then any attempt at a fake conversion would be, in Islam, unjustifiable. Particularly, any muslim who knowingly & publicly renounces his religion is an apostate.

=> Therefore, we can indeed know if these refugees are muslims or otherwise, depending on their adherence to the established basis of the religion.



3) One less argument for bigots to use against the immigrants.


- This is, in fact, persecution by the majority against the minority, the refugees in this case, probably worse than the one they fled from. Converting to another religion to avoid displeasing the majority is a blatant form of persecution & religious discrimination, which go against the professed values of EU nations.




Sources


[1] http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

1) Conversion vs Non-conversion

"It is evident that refugees preserving their faith is a superior outcome to them abandoning it"

Except it isnt..... Muslims gain no benefit from keeping to their faith, but converting to Christianity does, in that it could prevent the EU from being able to send them back to their home country. Therefore it is NOT evidenct that preserving their faith is the 'superior' option, it is in fact quite the opposite.



2) Sacrifice

"People sacrifice their lifestyle, flee from affliction, leave their homes, & then be welcomed by another people only then to feel the need to sacrifice more"

Except they would not be sacrificing MORE, they would be sacrificing their religious affiliation to regain that which they lost, namely housing, jobs, safety, stable government, a safe region, etc... They would not be sacrificing more just to join the EU, they would essentially be trading their faith to better be granted safety into the EU, rather than be sent back home where they would have literally nothing BUT their religion.



3) Safety from deportation

"converting to Christianity does literally nothing to change that, for better or worse."

Except it does, because by converting, it would be that much less legal to deport the refugees back to where they came from since they would be persecuted for their actions.

Pro is simply IGNORING the evidence presented so far that clearly indicates that converting to Christianity DOES benefit refugees.



"most refugees are not from Afghanistan or Iran... Therefore, this argument here doesn’t even apply to most refugees."

But those that ARE from Afghanistan and Iran have an incentive to convert, as mentioned by the evidence you continue to ignore. Furthermore, other countries have moved to prioritize christian refugees regardless of which country they come from

http://www.buzzfeed.com...
http://www.express.co.uk...

So converting to Christianity does increase the probability of being accepted no matter which country the refugees may hail from, so Muslims should convert



4) No one would really know if they faked it

"Professing the Christian faith while secretly holding to the Islamic faith is only permissible under mortal danger"

No its not, thats a complete opinion. To claim to be Christian while secretly being a Muslim can be permissible for a number of reasons. Doing so to avoid being deported back to nothing in the Middle East is certainly a good enough reason to fake converting.



5) "Persecution"

"persecution by the majority against the minority, the refugees in this case, probably worse than the one they fled from"

LOL. If you truly believe that converting to Christianity from Islam to get into Europe is 'probably worse' than the wretched lifestyle the refugees fled from in the Middle East, than you are incredibly ignorant of what is happening over there.


Yassine

Con

Case/Rebuttals:



1) I.


- Pro offered no counter-argument to my argument. He basically denied the value of Liberty & self determination, which he has yet to prove. Being a slave to the EU’s regulations is evidently harmful of the individual’s Liberty & basic human rights. Pro is suggesting something analogous to black people changing their colour to have better opportunities!



2) II.


- Last time I checked, Freedom of Conscience is a basic human right, which Pro sees as valueless! Pro is basically suggesting renouncing one’s identity & beliefs is a trivial matter. This is of course an erroneous assumption, for we can clearly see the self-determination of Man to protect, in the firmest way, what Man stands for. Particularly, the refugees mostly originate from regions of civil wars (Syria) triggered by the people’s desire for Liberty (Arab Spring) by standing for what they believe in.



3)


- The term Refugee refers to “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” [2]. A refugee is already fleeing from persecution (or war…), there is absolutely no benefice to changing his religion to fit the status of a refugee, for he is already there. Pro is saying something analogous to a sick patient attempting to wound himself to be admitted into the hospital. Well, he is already sick, there is absolutely no benefice to that injury!


But those that ARE from Afghanistan and Iran have an incentive to convert,

- One: they are already refugees, they have zero incentive to convert to reach that status. Two: Pro hasn’t demonstrated how a convert to Christianity may be actually persecuted if returned to his country.


So converting to Christianity does increase the probability of being accepted

- One: the initiative to prioritise Christians here applies, a priori, to ethnic Christians. It doesn’t necessarily apply to converts. There is no guarantee the ethnic Christians will not be prioritised over them anyways. Two: assuming Pro’s alleged religious persecution at home, conversion to Christianity would thus nullify the probability of the refugees ever being able to visit their home or their people. This seems like a cruel option.



4)


- Clearly, Pro is clueless of the subject he is entertaining. Unless a muslim is coerced by force under mortal danger, he is not permitted to renounce his religion, even in pretending:

* “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief, except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah…” (16:106) [3]



5)


- Well, Pro offered no argument & no counter-argument here. Preserving mental integrity is higher than preserving bodily integrity. The whole reason most of these refugees are refugees in the first place is because they & their people chose to stand for what they hold dear (their beliefs) despite the ‘wretched lifestyle’ their choice might bring about.

Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Conversion vs Non conversion

"Being a slave to the EU’s regulations is evidently harmful of the individual’s Liberty & basic human rights."

Slave? Con is now appealing to emotion rather than ground his arguments in fact and reason. The plain truth is that there ARE benefits of converting to Christianity rather than sticking to Islam, as evidenced by more willingness by countries to take in Christian refugees, and laws banning deportation of people who could be persecuted. Converting to Christianity doesnt make one a 'slave', they are simply exploiting EU laws to better gain entry into Europe.

Con has forfeited this point.


2) "Sacrifice"

"Pro is basically suggesting renouncing one’s identity & beliefs is a trivial matter"

Compared to gaining safety, education, economic opportunity, etc. In Europe, than it IS a trivial matter... Trading one unprovable religious orientation (Islam) in exchange for another unprovable religious orientation (Christianity) in order to gain access to an infinitely better lifestyle in Europe than you'd get in the Middle East does indeed make one's beliefs trivial. The fact that they can convert right back to being Muslim at any time reinforces this.




3) Safety form deportation

"there is absolutely no benefice to changing his religion"

Con has dropped this argument outright by failing to see time and time again that converting to Christianity prevents EU nations from deporting converters back to countries where they would be persecuted for converting.



"conversion to Christianity would nullify the probability of the refugees ever being able to visit their home or their people"

Their homes are GONE and their people are fleeing the countries with them. Is con unaware of just how many people are fleeing the Middle East to Europe?



4) They could fake it

"Unless a muslim is coerced by force under mortal danger, he is not permitted to renounce his religion"

You're allowed to pick and choose which parts of scripture you live your life by. Christians and Jews do it all the time and so do Muslims. If con knew anything about religion he might have remembered that, but he chooses to ignore it simply to reinforce his weak arguments.

Con concedes that people could simply fake converting to Christianity to better gain entry into Europe, and still secretly practice Islam like before



5) "Mental Integrity"

"Preserving mental integrity is higher than preserving bodily integrity"

Just like literally everything else con has said in this debate, this is an unsubstantiated opinion, not fact.


==============================================================================================

There are benefits to converting to Christianity over Islam in gaining entry into Europe that Con has ignored or failed to acknowledge. He has essentially forfeited every argument that was made across the board and has resorted to pandering to emotion rather than use a shred of reason or fact to back up his case. For this reason, vote Pro.
Yassine

Con

Summary:



- Pro made essentially the following arguments:

1. By converting to Christianity, Muslim refugees to European nations may not be expelled, for fear of being persecuted in their original country.

2. By converting to Christianity, Muslim refugees benefit from being prioritarily admitted into European nations.

3. While being converts to Christianity, Muslim refugees may still secretly hold on to their Islamic faith.

4. The rest of Pro’s arguments or rebuttals either rest on these above three or are bare assertions or are empty claims of my concession.



- Pro’s evidence for these statements:

1. An article citing this “in Afghanistan and Iran, for example, conversion to Christianity by a Muslim could be punished by death or imprisonment” without any reference, & thereafter noting: “Congregation member Vesam Heydari [‘s] case was rejected because the Norwegian authorities did not believe he would be persecuted as a Christian in Iran”. The article provides two contradictory citations, thus non-supportive as a source.

2. Two articles about Australia’s & Cyprus’ willingness to prioritise Christians over Muslims. One: Australia is not in Europe, thus irrelevant to the current resolution. Two: while Cyprus is technically part of Europe, the 300 Orthodox Christian it is taking do not concern the Muslims (millions of them). Either way, the articles are non-supportive sources.

3. No source.



- I made the following rebuttals:

1. One: bare assertion (non-supportive evidence). Two: refugees, by definition, are fleeing from persecution & war. Adding new pretexts of persecution don’t change the status of the refugee one bit. Pro’s argument here may make sense if the resolution is about non-refugees who want to be admitted as refugees. Therefore, evidence, premise & reasoning, Pro’s entire argument is erroneous.

2. One: bare assertion (non-supportive evidence). Two: prioritising Christians over Muslims do not entail prioritising new converts to Christianity over ethnic Christians. Therefore, this argument is a non-sequitur.

3. One: bare assertion (no evidence). Two: the verse I mentioned: “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, […] they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” Clearly states that those who change their religion, even in pretense, unless forced to do so against their will, are disbelievers (i.e. not Muslim). Contrary to what Pro imagines, being a Muslim strictly means believing in the entire Qur’an, according to the Qur’an itself [4].




Conclusion:



- By failing the above arguments, Pro’s rebuttals against mine, for which he relies on these argument, fail as well. Thus, Pro’s entire case (arguments & rebuttals) is void.


=> Vote Con.




Sources:



[2] Google dictionary.

[3] http://quran.com...

[4] http://quran.com...

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TUF// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly goes through much of the debate, explaining how and why certain points matter in his estimation and covering a great deal of the debate on both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tstor// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: When I started reading this debate, I had never really considered the topic. By the end, I was convinced by what Con had to say. Both Pro and Con had great conduct. There was no "mud slinging" or anything of that sort. Spelling an grammar was equal, so no one was a clear winner in that category. When it came down to the arguments, Con has it on lock. Not only did he successfully refute what Pro was saying, but he also provided his own strong claims such as "Submission vs. Liberty" and " From persecution to persecution!" He even made the effort to correct mistakes made by Pro, such as the statement "you're allowed to pick and choose which parts of scripture you live your life by." This is completely incorrect, as Con properly pointed out. Con used few sources, which is not inherently bad. The few sources that he did use were extremely reliable, such as the Qur'an. Pro used several sources, which were shown to be unreliable in Round 3 by Con. Overall, great debate!

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The source point allocation is insufficiently explained. While it is possible that all of Pro's sources were entirely defeated in R3, all of the sources, including Con's, were contested. As the source point allocation clarifies a major difference between the debaters in their use and/or rebuttal of sources, the voter has to do more than he did here. (2) The argument points are insufficient. The voter doesn't assess whole arguments, simply mentioning two claims made by Con, one claim made by Pro, and stating their results with little to no analysis.
************************************************************************
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
"no link was made by Pro that asylum would be granted upon conversion"

If you actually read any part of the debate then maybe youd see that I never actually argued that asylum would be granted upon conversion..... Next time dont let your bias drive your vote
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
In R1, Con provided rebuttal; escaping persecution only to renounce what they were persecuted for is pointless, nor does fake conversion have any merit. Also, migration from one prosecutorial situation into another similar condition is not occurring in EU nations. Con refuted Pros R1 reference in R3 noting the contradictory nature of statements made. In R2 Pro attempted to support her argument with articles on counties preferring Christian migrants over Muslims. Con argued correctly this was a moot point; no link was made by Pro that asylum would be granted upon conversion. Con exhibited a greater understanding of EU policies and Muslim belief system. Though, Con does provide the Quran as reference to the religious assertions, he fails to present a reference on EU policies to back his statements. Overall Con presented appropriate rebuttal to the majority of Pros references and statements, resulting in a win.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
@Shalal12 lol that was the worst f*cking joke I have ever heard.
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
@imabench,
LOL. Make sure you will fail to teach them that God is three but one!! hahaha!
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- Hey, what's up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
imabenchYassineTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YY2D-J9k5uvx6g_IaiPt4SFkldILCxjvAiLZn_Yk15E/edit?usp=sharing