The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KGNine
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It's time to send all Western Muslims back to the Middle East

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 94177
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

It's time to round up all Muslims and send them to the Middle East, so they can lived under Sharia Law.
KGNine

Con

I would like to start this round by going over how ignorant my opponent's statement is, and why it goes against the ideology of democracy and goodness in general.

Muslims have no statistic which proves that they are any more dangerous than any other humans in the west. The amount of Muslims who are actually terrorists are so minimal, that this debate has nearly no reason for existing. Muslims come from a hard-working culture which supports an essential part of our economy. No one has any right to send them back to the Middle East. Also, the Western Muslims WERE BORN IN THE WEST. It would go again the American constitution to send rightful Americans to other countries.

Secondly, Western Muslims have either gone through security checks or have been born in the west, proving that they pose no threat to the west. They have just as much of a right to reside in the west as anyone does. Simply because a nearly invisible amount of them are terrorists, does not mean we have to send the %99.999999999 of them who aren't todangerous nations within the Middle East. In Texas, there are hundreds of murders every year, and Texas was formerly part of Mexico. No one is suggesting that we should stick all Texans in Mexico, eh?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, these Middle-Eastern nations are unsafe and currently under the power of cruel dictators. The Muslims could very well be punished in the Middle East, and that is something I hope my opponent doesn't wish on them.

Concluding, Muslims pose no threat, and they have just as much of a right to live in the West than any other race does. They have either been born here in the west, or have been allowed into the west. Any objection to Muslims having a right to live in the west is simply an act of racism. Disallowing anyone simply due to their race is just a wrong thing. I sincerely hope that my opponent can see how how his proposition is, and how it defies democracy and the human rights code for that matter.
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"I would like to start this round by going over how ignorant my opponent's statement is, and why it goes against the ideology of democracy and goodness in general."


This is an ignorant statement. If space aliens began attacking Earth, we wouldn't look for aliens to spare. We'd get rid of all of them. Goodness is a semantical term when under attack. Sharia and democracy are not compatable, thus democracy doesn't owe totalitarian ideologies anything per common sense.


*


"What the West needs to understand about Islam is that Jihad is very systematic. If Muslims have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged by force. If Muslims do not have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged through financial and political means. Since Muslims do not have the upper hand in most of the West, they talk about peace in front of you while supporting terrorists in the back room. The whole idea of Islam being a peaceful religion emanates from that silent stage of Jihad."


Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler."
-Walid Shoebat, ex-Muslim




*


Excerpt from article-


"During the 2016 New Year's Eve celebrations, hundreds of sexual assaults, rape, groping, and numerous thefts were reported in Germany, mainly in Cologne city centre." "All of the incidents involved women being surrounded and assaulted by groups of men on the street. There are more than 1,900 victims – 1,200 of whom were sexually assaulted – and police stated that at least 2,000 men were involved, acting in groups."


"Police reported that the perpetrators were men of "Arab or North African appearance" and said that Germany had never experienced such mass sexual assaults before."




*


FDR implemented a full roundup of anyone Japanese during WWII. Why? We were under attack, and something had to be done. And it worked to.




And let me remind you, this is the same man who said:


"If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace."


mobile.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind132705.html


Which is a lovely and noble sentiment...until a group declares war on your entire culture as Islam has done.


*




*


According to pew polls' findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God and ovverides any body of law developed by men. That's a bit problematic for democracy, which is a "body of law developed my men."


www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia


*


Sweden took on the liberal concept of allowing in anyone under the guise of multiculturism, tollerance, and "doing the right thing". Now, they are the ones not being "tollerated" in their own country and are soon expected to be the minority in their own country.


Sweden has now been labled the "Rape Capital of the West". There is a 1/4 change of being raped as a woman in Sweden. Blonde women are now dying their hair black to not be identified as Swedish, many actually wearing hijabs as disguises, and only going out with men to protect them.








*


Islam has become so problematic in Europe that the pice have labeled thousands of areas as "no go zones". Meaning areas where police find it too dangerous to enter or where ambulances have to be escorted to and from by heavy law enforcement. These zones have also been labeled "Sharia Zones", meaning they are ruled by Sharia courts, have literal "morality police" or "Sharia Patrols" in whence Sharia Law is enforced in a blatant ignoring of the laws of the home country.


Hungary has officially declared that their are at least 900 "no go zones" in the EU.








*


And ISIS has revealed areas of Europe that it plans on controlling fully by 2020. Allowing Muslims in the West has given rise to unsermountable rape epidemics, violence, and Islamic safe havens for terrorism. Thus, it has just become normal to hear about Islamic based mass shootings, suicide bombings(450 of 452 bombings in 2015 were Islamic), genocides, and "lone wolf" terrorist acts.

It is time to round up the Muslims, send them to the Middle East, and get back control of our great nations. Con may want to stick Con's head in the sand, but that will:

1)Get us killed.

2)Fuel chaos

3)Make the problem worse.


KGNine

Con

I would like to bring add this link in order to counter my opponent's comment on labeling Sweden as the rape capital of the world: https://www.reddit.com...
This is probably the favorite chart of any anti-immigration activist on the Internet. It clearly shows that, as a result of Sweden's liberal immigration policy and overly humane refugee acceptance, the country has now become a hell cape where blue-eyed women are raped daily by Muslims and blacks. As much so that now there are more per capita rapes in Sweden than in Bolivia.
There are two major problems with these statistics.
I. "In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. "So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record - one victim, one type of crime, one record."
http://www.bbc.com...
This technical note renders this whole comparison meaningless, but let's go further, because the second point is more interesting.
II. As everyone who has ever studied criminology knows, in the case of rape, there is insane latency rates. If there is willingness to report rape, the number will skyrocket in any country. In countries where rape remains associated with a strong taboo and a high level of shame, the propensity to report such offences probably tends to be lower than in countries characterized by a higher level of sexual equality. The findings of the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey indicate that the respondents' satisfaction with the police is above average in Sweden. Sweden has also been ranked number one in sexual equality.
In addition, there is also the issue of the broad legal definition of rape in Sweden.
If you are going to assess how much of a hellscape Sweden has become as a result of immigration based on a single piece of statistical data, I advise using another violent crime where latency is significantly lower; just to be one step closer to the truth, if that matters at all. There is the murder rate, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

As seen, Sweden's statistics have been rigged due to them labeling their stats in a different fashion.

Secondly, I would like to counter my opponent's comment on Muslims supposedly waging war on the west. I would assume that my opponent is referring to Isis in this case, as they are the only 'Muslims' who have posed any threat to the west. Isis might as well be a different religion in this case. They hold a form of Islam which very few Muslims actually consider a legitimate form of the religion. The vast, vast majority of Muslims in the west do not consider Isis a form of Islam, and disagree with Isis killing in G-d's name. There are actually less Muslims in the west that support Isis, than there are Anglos and whites. My opponents statistics have no basis behind them, and are simply rigged in his favour.

Thirdly, countering my opponent's statement about the rapes in Germany, the majority of these rapists were illegal immigrants who had sneaked in secretly. My argument is not saying that we should let Muslims in without security checks. They should have to go through the immigrant process just like any other foreigner. I am simply stating that there is no reason to send them away just because of their religion. This is simply another topic which my opponent has unfairly directed in his favour.

I would also like to remind my opponent that Hungary is being criticized by the EU and the UN for their actions regarding the Arab Spring, and I personally feel these are very legitimate organizations that have the right to be critical of Hungary. In my opinion, Hungary is doing the wrong thing not taking in any Muslim immigrants.

I would like to finish my argument off by reminding everyone, that Muslims can only benefit the west. They are improving the economy and the unemployment rate. (just like any other hard-working person) Concluding, my opponent is exposing his ignorance regarding this topic by labeling all Muslims as the same. Isis has a very tiny population compared to Islam as a whole.
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events."

Don't think so. Reports of individual rapes of migrants wouldn't be reported 300 times. If anything, this proves it's actually worse than the statistics show because nonmigrants are being reported 300 times too much.



*

Con:

"As seen, Sweden's statistics have been rigged."

For what? In this comment Con tells us:

"Sweden has also been ranked number one in sexual equality."

So which is it that Con wants to attach to? The "rigged system" or "Ranked number one in sexual equality". One has to be b.s. by default.

*

Con:

"Secondly, I would like to counter my opponent's comment on Muslims supposedly waging war on the west. I would assume that my opponent is referring to Isis in this case, as they are the only 'Muslims' who have posed any threat to the west."

Come on Con. Al Queda and Boko Haram have been a threat to the West all of my life. The "rape of Cologne" by 2,000 Muslim men in one night and multiple "lone wolf attacks" like the Boston Marathon Bombers, etc are an obvious testament that this statement is false.

*

Con:

"Disallowing anyone simply due to their race is just a wrong thing."

Islam is not a race. It's a religion that teaches to destroy all non-Muslims systematically through silent jihad.

*

Con:

"Hungary is doing the wrong thing not taking in any Muslim immigrants."

And yet they are safer from terrorism.

Con has blatantly ignored that Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia(which has 3 million openly available hajj tents with AC) are not taking any refugees. Why do you think that is? I'll take a stab at it:

1)They know better and Europe doesn't.

Or

2)They know that by accepting none the ignorance of liberal Europe will take them in, in mass, and to its own demise, which is a Saudi goal.


*

Con:

"Concluding, my opponent is exposing his ignorance regarding this topic by labeling all Muslims as the same."

Islam is commanded by Muhammed to destroy us multiple times like a mantra in the Quran. 1.7 billion people with that ideological mindset are a danger, and not helpful.

*

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex Muslim Quotes-

1)"The morning after the 9/11 attacks...we began talking about the Twin Towers attack. Ruud shook his head sadly about it all. He said, "It's so weird, isn't it, all these people saying this has to do with Islam?"

I couldn't help myself...I blurted out, "But it *is* about Islam. This is based in belief. This is Islam."

Ruud said, "Ayaan, of course these people may have been Muslims, but they are a lunatic fringe. We have extremist Christians, too, who interpret the bible literally. Most Muslims do not believe these things. To say so is to disparage a faith which is the second largest religion in the world, and which is civilized, and peaceful."

I walked into the office thinking, "I have to wake these people up."...The Dutch had forgotten that it was possible for people to stand up and wage war, destroy property, imprison, kill, impose laws of virtue because of the call of God. That kind of religion hadn't been present in Holland for centuries. It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast mass of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam."

2)"In the real world, equal respect for all cultures doesn't translate into a rich mosaic of colorful and proud peoples interacting peacefully while maintaining a delightful diversity of food and craftwork. It translates into closed pockets of oppression, ignorance, and abuse."

3)"Infuriatingly stupid analysts - especially people who called themselves Arabists, yet who seemed to know next to nothing about the reality of the Islamic world - wrote reams of commentary [after 9/11]. Their articles were all about Islam saving Aristotle and the zero, which medieval Muslim scholars had done more than eight hundred years ago; about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance, not the slightest bit violent. These were fairy tales, nothing to do with the real world I knew."

"I lived in countries that had no democracy... so I don't find myself in the same luxury as you do. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don't know what it is like to not have it..but you will if you keep allowing Islam into the West."

KGNine

Con

I would like to start this argument, by explaining how my opponent's regard to my counter-statement is invalid. The 300 thing was simply an example, and my opponent seems to be thinking that was an actual statistic. Sweden's statistics were interpreted incorrectly by many, because they labelled them differently. This is a simple mistake, that my opponent was wrongfully using as an argument.

"Con has blatantly ignored that Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia(which has 3 million openly available hajj tents with AC) are not taking any refugees. Why do you think that is? I'll take a stab at it"

I would also like to remind my opponent that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship and shouldn't be used as a point in an argument. People in Saudi Arabia are being lashed for witchcraft and my opponent apparently believes they are still a rightful source of intelligence. Moreover, Osama Bin-laden was Saudi Arabian and Saudi Arabia (a Muslim state) despised him along with Al-Qaeda proving that there are different kinds of Islam opposing each other apparently contrary to the belief of my opponent.

"Islam is not a race. It's a religion that teaches to destroy all non-Muslims systematically through silent jihad."

I'm sorry but this is just outrageously untrue. My opponent is stretching every little bit of information he knows about this topic, and turning it into a completely false statement. Muslims don't want to destroy everyone else, it's more about oneness between everything. And even if this were true, the Christian bible states that all non-Christians shall perish once Jesus reappears on Earth. How is this different from your vision of Islam?

"The morning after the 9/11 attacks...we began talking about the Twin Towers attack. Ruud shook his head sadly about it all. He said, "It's so weird, isn't it, all these people saying this has to do with Islam?"

I couldn't help myself...I blurted out, "But it *is* about Islam. This is based in belief. This is Islam."

Ruud said, "Ayaan, of course these people may have been Muslims, but they are a lunatic fringe. We have extremist Christians, too, who interpret the bible literally. Most Muslims do not believe these things. To say so is to disparage a faith which is the second largest religion in the world, and which is civilized, and peaceful."

I walked into the office thinking, "I have to wake these people up."...The Dutch had forgotten that it was possible for people to stand up and wage war, destroy property, imprison, kill, impose laws of virtue because of the call of God. That kind of religion hadn't been present in Holland for centuries. It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast mass of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam."

2)"In the real world, equal respect for all cultures doesn't translate into a rich mosaic of colorful and proud peoples interacting peacefully while maintaining a delightful diversity of food and craftwork. It translates into closed pockets of oppression, ignorance, and abuse."

3)"Infuriatingly stupid analysts - especially people who called themselves Arabists, yet who seemed to know next to nothing about the reality of the Islamic world - wrote reams of commentary [after 9/11]. Their articles were all about Islam saving Aristotle and the zero, which medieval Muslim scholars had done more than eight hundred years ago; about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance, not the slightest bit violent. These were fairy tales, nothing to do with the real world I knew."

"I lived in countries that had no democracy... so I don't find myself in the same luxury as you do. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don't know what it is like to not have it..but you will if you keep allowing Islam into the West."

I will once again counter my opponent's argument: I really dislike how Ayaan tries to make his friend here sound like some kind of infant incapable of logical thinking. No, this is not Islam. I could not agree with Ayaan's friend more. Bin-Laden himself said that 9/11 only occurred in an attempt to put America in a fearful state. This had nothing to do with Islam; this was just something Al-Qaeda did to send America into a panic. Additionally, Muslims in the west do not associate themselves with these people. My opponent's statement is incorrect: He is simply taking things that hardly qualify as true in the first place, stretching them and then using them as a 'legitimate' route to his entire argument. He is dodging the reality of what he is actually saying and using invalid methods to support his flawed case.

In relation to all who criticize Muslim immigration into the west, my opponent is providing false/no statistics in his statements. In my opinion, they are simple, crude and extremely racist comments and statements. My opponent's dislike for the immigration of Muslims is all opinion-based and illegitimate. He isn't backing up anything he says with real, legitimate, hard facts. This is very similar to the way (in my opinion) that Donald Trump is regarding Islam. He is making broad and stretched statements that ignorant people can mistake as the truth just because it's a rant. It's accurate to consider my opponent's arguments as incarnations of Trump's opinions regarding Islam.

"Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages."

-https://www.donaldjtrump.com...

For example, just read this section from Donald Trump's website. It mentions no link between green cards and foreign workers, it just claims it will change the outcome of the situation. I promise you, there is no statistic that supports this; this is just racism as a whole. This is essentially my opponent's argument: Either a stretched statement or absurd reasoning with tons of missing links.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"The 300 thing was simply an example, and my opponent seems to be thinking that was an actual statistic."

Con must explain why the Swedish women are dying their hair and wearing hijabs to hide their identities.

*

Con:

"Muslims don't want to destroy everyone else, it's more about oneness between everything."

3:28 Don’t take unbelievers as friends and allies, unless it is for “fear of them,” i.e. deceptively for protection of oneself or of Islam

QURAN 101-

(5:51)

“O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers."

(8:12)

"When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”

8:39 (Conquer the world)

“Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

(9:29)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden."

(9:123)

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing."

(47:4)

"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."

(3:28)

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends, rather than the believers, for whoso does that belongs not to Allah in anything, unless you have a fear of them. Allah warns you that You beware of Him, and unto Allah is the homecoming.”

*

Con:

"Bin-Laden himself said that 9/11 only occurred in an attempt to put America in a fearful state. This had nothing to do with Islam; this was just something Al-Qaeda did to send America into a panic."

(3:151)

"We will cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.”

*

Con:

"I will once again counter my opponent's argument: I really dislike how Ayaan tries to make his friend here sound like some kind of infant incapable of logical thinking. No, this is not Islam. I could not agree with Ayaan's friend more."

Con is arguing Islam with a former female Islamist who had her genitalia cut off per Islam because if a woman has a clitoris, she'll be tempted to have sex more than neccessary.

*

Con:

"Additionally, Muslims in the west do not associate themselves with these people."

Shall I list the Western Muslims who have engaged in terrorism against Europe and the U.S.? It's huge.

*

Con:

"In relation to all who criticize Muslim immigration into the west, my opponent is providing false/no statistics in his statements."

There were 452 suicide bombings in 2015. 450 were Islamic. That's 99%.



*

Con:

"My opponent's dislike for the immigration of Muslims is all opinion-based and illegitimate."

Well, it is the religion I grew up in...

*

Con:

"This is very similar to the way (in my opinion) that Donald Trump is regarding Islam."

If Trump actually knew Islam, he'd deport every single last one.

*

Con:

"I promise you, there is no statistic that supports this; this is just racism as a whole."

Islam isn't a race. There are black, Chinese, Arab, African, Russian, Australian, etc Muslims. It's a religion.

*

According to Con, Ex Muslims of North America (EXMNA) know nothing about Islam.



*

Sarah Haider, President of EXMNA, ex American Muslim-

QUOTE-

"My opinion is that absent a liberal critique of Islam, which is often muted from fear of being labelled Islamophobes or racists in the West or communal and non-secular in India, the narrative will be taken over by the violent right-wing in non-Muslim societies. When the topic is a difficult one, the most reason-oriented and committed-to-peace people must speak up and speak up forcefully, without mincing words. They need to own the narrative, they need to be the most outspoken."

"Or else, it is my belief, that there will be eventually a global reaction led by people for whom violence is always justifiable and the ensuing war will be the most devastating the world has ever seen."


*

Quote-

"I knew all along that Islam was not a religion of peace. In fact it is not a religion at all, but a cult inciting hatred and violence."

-Arshad Ahmed, ex Muslim
KGNine

Con

I will once again begin this round by countering a few of my opponent's points:

"'Muslims don't want to destroy everyone else, it's more about oneness between everything.'"

3:28" 'Don"t take unbelievers as friends and allies, unless it is for "fear of them,' i.e. deceptively for protection of oneself or of Islam.'"
This is simply a single quotation, which my opponent has once again blankly looked over and is now labeling as all of Islam. Now firstly, the Christian bible has many examples of quotations like this, but do we label this as all of Christianity? This is simply a bit of philosophy. and in no way does it have to be taken literally. Not all of Islam believes in literal translations. Even if some do believe this is to be taken literally, the majority of those likely believe we are now in a different era, and therefore no longer have to follow every guideline set. This is like saying that all Christians believe that Jesus will destroy all non-believers once he returns to us. We're not going to kick every Christian out of the west because of their beliefs. Also, plenty of Christians believe in the bible, but not necessarily every single literal translation.

(47:4)

"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."

My opponent actually made an incorrect statement in this verse and it actually goes: "So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens."

Firstly, once again, this was a different era. This whole quotation could very well be a metaphor. Battle could be a metaphor for argument, and neck could be a metaphor for routes of belief. Slaughter could be a metaphor for defeat in argument. In every religion, the highest branch of orthodox will debate with other religious groups until the cows come home, and that is what I believe this could be suggesting. Also, if you read the end of the quotation, the intentions of the 'battle' are all good. They're not only doing it for the sake of fighting. They're performing the task in an attempt to force the opponent to stop fighting. These are two quotations my opponent has mistranslated into the modern era, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the quotations he has quoted from the Quran are just as incorrectly translated. However, I am not going through every single quotation he has mistranslated, as I am sure that my opponent understands my point.
http://quran.com...

"Con is arguing Islam with a former female Islamist who had her genitalia cut off per Islam because if a woman has a clitoris, she'll be tempted to have sex more than necessary."

I understand my opponent's point here, but I don't exactly comprehend how it's supposed to be targeting my argument. I would like him to elaborate on this point a bit more, before he adds it to his case. Circumcision and this kind of thing is performed painlessly.

"Shall I list the Western Muslims who have engaged in terrorism against Europe and the U.S.? It's huge."

No, my opponent is once again incorrect. The number of Western Muslims participating in anti-west terrorism is not 'huge.' According to a recent poll, %80 of American Muslims believe that military action should be taken against Isis and various other terrorist groups. Secondly, there is no significant percentage of western Muslims who have joined Isis. Sure, there are a tiny amount, but the overwhelming majority are completely opposed to Isis and other groups. Also, if we were to send all Western Muslims to the Middle East, would that really strengthen their love for the west? Wouldn't that just make it more likely for them to have sympathy for terrorism? My opponent is obviously not thinking ahead, making this statement. http://www.pewresearch.org...

"There were 452 suicide bombings in 2015. 450 were Islamic. That's 99%."

My opponent still clearly doesn't understand what I have said at least five times now. These bombings have been claimed by Isis and various other terrorist groups. Western Muslims (once again) do not associate themselves with 'Islam' terrorist groups. I honestly don't understand how my opponent has not taken anything from this point. I believe it is a very obvious statement, and I do not understand why he keeps trying to use statements like these in his favour.

"Well, it is the religion I grew up in..."

My opponent made this statement countering mine, about his statements being opinion-based. I accept that you grew up with Islam. You have come to dislike it. I accept that. Does this mean that you can use untrue statistics to prove your points? I don't think so. When entering a debate, you need to have legitimately proven statistics. You can't stretch truths and creature misunderstandings in the fashion you are. From bring up the Sweden point (disproved) to claiming that a large percentage of Western Muslims are joining terrorist groups (disproved) you are only hurting your own case.

"According to Con, Ex Muslims of North America (EXMNA) know nothing about Islam."

I would like you to prove that. This is once again another statement that my opponent is just declaring to be true without providing any basis. Please elaborate on your point. I never stated what you apparently believe I had in this case. This has nothing to do with the debate. I said that the vast majority of Western Muslims are against terrorism in the Middle-East. That is the closest thing I can think of that matches what you are accusing me of saying. The links you have provided match people with your ideology, but nowhere do I see any evidence that I believe that Ex Muslims know nothing about Islam. I, however believe that these people do understand Islam. They just have come to different conclusions, regarding it.

"Con must explain why the Swedish women are dying their hair and wearing hijabs to hide their identities."

I did a bit of research about this online, and know for a fact that no significant percentage of Swedish women are dying their hair and wearing hiijabs. Once again, Sweden has a different way of labeling their rape statistics. Because of this, many people have misunderstood the stats as supposedly suggesting that the rape statistics were higher. I am yet to understand how my opponent thinks this qualifies as a point.

I will conclude my argument here, by explaining how having Muslims in our society is a win-win.

Here in the west, I am proud to live in such a diverse part of the world. We should all be free to celebrate our differences and share our culture with the rest of the world. I am aware my opponent is probably going to make a remark about Islam culture being destructive, but he is completely and utterly incorrect. Firstly, Middle-Eastern refugees are escaping carnage in their own nations. They are being pursued by cruel dictators, who want to harm them. In the west, they have an opportunity to express their joy, being in such a diverse and beautiful part of the world. Also, plenty of born-Western- Muslims are proud of their heritage. They are proud of their culture, their celebrations, their food etc. They want to share what makes them different with the rest of the world; just like we all do. This is how we should all reside. The spreading of diversity is a positive thing. We need more of it. We are not improving any of the world's problems by casting country-mates away. We need to celebrate each other. We need to come together as a people.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"This is simply a single quotation, which my opponent has once again blankly looked over and is now labeling as all of Islam."

And a quotation from their infallable leader who was divinely "inspired by God" and created the entire construct of their religion. If they aren't adhering to what Muhammed actually said, that would be "not being a Muslim". Is there some so named Muslim" somewhere who ignores Muhammed? Sure. But with nearly 2 billion adherants, if most believe Muhammed, and they do, then his teaching is law to nearly 2 billion people.

*

Con:
"Now firstly, the Christian bible has many examples of quotations like this, but do we label this as all of Christianity?"

Not in the New Testament, and the Old Testament isn't where Christians get their teachings on life from. (Jesus) It's a logical and theological fallacy. Christians do not sacrifice animals because Jesus said not to. Muslims do sacrifice animals because Muhammed said to.

Con:
"the majority of those likely believe we are now in a different era."

I was raised in Islam. They don't " believe it's a different era." They are here in the U.S. believing and being taught in the mosques:

1)The end is near.

2)The world will be conquested and ruled fully by Islam at the time of the end, and the time to take over the West, per a religious fatwah, is now. Commanded world domination is a fundamental and core part of Islam.

*
Con:
"Battle could be a metaphor for argument, and neck could be a metaphor for routes of belief."

I know zero Muslims that think this, and I was raised Muslim and in America. It most certainly was never mentioned at any of the diversity of mosques I attended in my life.

*

Con:
"These are two quotations my opponent has mistranslated into the modern era, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the quotations he has quoted from the Quran are just as incorrectly translated."

That's the translation written in every Quran used at any American mosque I ever attended, and it was taught to.mean what it says.

http://www.noblequran.com...

It says it in Arabic as well to end all doubt.

https://quran.com...

*

Dr. Mudar Zahran, defined himself as an “orthodox Muslim.” He says there’s a “genuine problem with Muslims in Europe” and calls the current wave of migrants entering the continent “the soft Islamic conquest of the West.” This is the second wave of jihad. Jihad is a systematic process that gradually takes you over from the inside and the outside, infiltrating your system and people, then closing around it violently from the inside and the outside once it has the power to do so. Example: If a future U.S. President were a Muslim and deleted the 2nd Amendment, once an ambush by Muslims was executed, he could have the military stand down per executive order, and Americans would have no armed defense against Islamic militants. That is how Islam works.

http://www.thenewamerican.com...

Sheikh Muhammad Ayed gave a speech at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem issuing Muslims to use the migrant crisis to breed with European citizens and 'conquer their countries'. We will give them fertility. We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

*

Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Islamic scholar. He is currently the host of Al Jazeera's most popular show, "Shariah and Life," and, largely because of this, has become a very influential force among Muslims worldwide. Al-Qaradawi also serves as chairman of the board of trustees at the Islamic American University, a subsidiary of the Muslim American Society and speaks in the United States regularly. And I quote:

"What remains, then, is to conquer Rome. The second part of the omen. "The city of Hiraq (once emperor of Constantinople) will be conquered first", so what remains is to conquer Rome.' This means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice. Conquest through Da'wa (proselytizing), that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da'wa."

*

Con:
"Firstly, once again, this was a different era."

Con says this, but Islam still slits the throats of live animals on hajj (yes, even Western Muslims), beheads, stones people, and practices genital mutilation on females in countries under Sharia Law and some that are not. Western Muslims many times send their daughters to countries under Sharia to inact genital mutilation to evade Western laws. Does this sound like they have entered into this "new era" to you?

*

Con:
"Circumcision and this kind of thing is performed painlessly."

I thought about posting a youtube video of a young girl being mutilated against her will, screaming, being held down, and bleeding wildly, but was unsure whether or not it violated the terms of service on DDO. A simple youtube search will yield the results.

www.investigativeproject.org/profile/167/yusuf-al-qaradawi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
KGNine

Con

I will start of the last round of this debate, my countering a few of my opponent's arguments;

"And a quotation from their infallible leader who was divinely "inspired by God" and created the entire construct of their religion. If they aren't adhering to what Muhammed actually said, that would be "not being a Muslim". Is there some so named Muslim" somewhere who ignores Muhammed? Sure. But with nearly 2 billion adherents, if most believe Muhammed, and they do, then his teaching is law to nearly 2 billion people."

Yes, but in every religion, various quotations are not meant to be taken absolutely literally. Most of Islam does not support every little bit of the Quaran. There are bits and pieces of every religion that are to be taken metaphorically rather than absolutely literally. Your point is once again incorrect, as you are ignorantly regarding every bit of information in the Quaran as fact of what Islam believes in. Also, the last time I checked, we have freedom of belief and thought in the west, as long as no one is physically harmed in the process. Western Muslims are not going around murdering others, in the west.

"Not in the New Testament, and the Old Testament isn't where Christians get their teachings on life from. (Jesus) It's a logical and theological fallacy. Christians do not sacrifice animals because Jesus said not to. Muslims do sacrifice animals because Muhammed said to."

This is yet another incorrect statement. In the New Testament, it specifically states that all non-believers will be crushed when Jesus re-appears on the Earth. This seems to be not overly indifferent from your ignorant image of Islam. Once again, your point proves to be only a stretched opinionated statement.

"I was raised in Islam. They don't " believe it's a different era." They are here in the U.S. believing and being taught in the mosques:

1)The end is near.

2)The world will be conquested and ruled fully by Islam at the time of the end, and the time to take over the West, per a religious fatwah, is now. Commanded world domination is a fundamental and core part of Islam."

This is possibly the falsest thing you've said for the entirety of the debate. I really don't know where you got this, but it is not from the Quaran. Nowhere does it specifically (or even non-specifically) state that Muslims have a desire to take over the world. This is not the philosophy of Islam. This is racism as a whole. My opponent has failed, during the entirety of this debate, to provide any legitimate facts about the 'evils' of Islam. I suppose in my opponent's mind, he thinks that Muslims have some sort of plan that they're all in on: that they apparently want to take over the world. This is complete and utter nonsense. My opponent is now resorting to nonsensical insults of Islam, due to the fact that there is no legitimate point to make against it. The end is near thing my opponent apparently believes was also stated, could be even sillier. Maybe this is somewhere in the Church of Scientology, but this is not Islam.

"'Dr. Mudar Zahran, defined himself as an "orthodox Muslim." He says there"s a "genuine problem with Muslims in Europe" and calls the current wave of migrants entering the continent "the soft Islamic conquest of the West." This is the second wave of jihad. Jihad is a systematic process that gradually takes you over from the inside and the outside, infiltrating your system and people, then closing around it violently from the inside and the outside once it has the power to do so. Example: If a future U.S. President were a Muslim and deleted the 2nd Amendment, once an ambush by Muslims was executed, he could have the military stand down per executive order, and Americans would have no armed defense against Islamic militants. That is how Islam works. '"

Firstly, TheNewAmerican can hardly be considered a reliable source of information. Secondly, this is yet another bizzare statement. I honestly don't know who this Dr. Zahran is, but I can guarantee you he represents a microscopic part of Islam. He can consider himself how he wants to,, but the vast majority of Muslims (so vast in fact, it's almost an understatement to consider it this) do not believe in anything like this. I don't know where this foolishness comes from, but it is nothing but absurd and tangled reasoning. Western Muslims have no belief in the inflicting of pain and trouble upon other fellow-westerners.

"Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Islamic scholar. He is currently the host of Al Jazeera's most popular show, "Shariah and Life," and, largely because of this, has become a very influential force among Muslims worldwide. Al-Qaradawi also serves as chairman of the board of trustees at the Islamic American University, a subsidiary of the Muslim American Society and speaks in the United States regularly. And I quote:

"What remains, then, is to conquer Rome. The second part of the omen. "The city of Hiraq (once emperor of Constantinople) will be conquered first", so what remains is to conquer Rome.' This means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice. Conquest through Da'wa (proselytizing), that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da'wa.'"

On the contrary, Yusuf al-Qaradawi has received plenty of controversy for making these kinds of statements from Muslims and Non-Muslims alike. Al-Qaradawi does not hold the sort of influence over Islam you claim him to have. I would also like to remind my opponent, that this man is a television personality. As I'm sure we both know, television personalities are known for making controversial statements in order to gain popularity. While I can perhaps see what you are trying to say, it remains incorrect.

"I thought about posting a youtube video of a young girl being mutilated against her will, screaming, being held down, and bleeding wildly, but was unsure whether or not it violated the terms of service on DDO. A simple youtube search will yield the results."

I am once again reminding my opponent that the majority of Islam does not support this kind of thing. I have not heard of any part of it that does. In fact, it has been modernized to be performed surgically and painlessly.

I would like to finish off the debate my thanking my opponent for participating, and with a few closing statements.

Throughout every era and every generation, man has feared the arrival of another group. It has formerly included the Irish and Judaism. They arrived, escaping their respective nations, and people continuously feared them. However, has any harm occurred in the west due to new ethnic groups arriving? No. There has been no increase in any negative virtues of society in the west, save racism. The one thing that consistently holds up during these periods are racism. Racism is defined as "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." But what are the routes of racism? Well, it consists of both the fear of change and the laziness to learn more about others. This is how racism is formed. It has been repeated over and over again throughout history. It needs to stop immediately. More diversity brings beauty and uniqueness to the west. This is what we need. We don't need to push each other out, or possess hatred for others for no legitimate reason, we need to change. As long as racism exists, we will be further and further away from political correctness. Additionally, my opponent's entire argument goes against the American Constitution. But furthermore, we need to find a way to achieve peace in our society. My opponent's ideology, is not the correct way to do so. http://www.dictionary.com...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by brontoraptor 6 months ago
brontoraptor
Don't be stinky danielle. You tried to hit up on me more than once.
Posted by Danielle 6 months ago
Danielle
What a stupid debate. I wish I had the patience for trolls like I used to.
No votes have been placed for this debate.