Muslims make up most terrorists
Debate Rounds (4)
I assume this, based off the last challenge, is basically "Muslims make up most terrorists and Islam is a religion of Terror."
Argument I: Terrorist Membership
While Terrorist groups are very private, leaving little to be understood about their numbers. Every religion has it's share of extremists, including Jewish and even Buddhist terrorist groups. And not all Terrorism is religious. Most groups arise to fight for political ideologies. This includes Communist and Socialist terrorist groups. A list of Terrorist groups by region shows the Islamic nations have no more than 38% of all Terrorist groups in the world. Although many terrorist groups in the area are Jewish and Political.
In fact, many Terrorist groups in the area who are made of Muslims, are in fact political groups, not religious groups, but that doesn't really get us anywhere with the Resolution.
Argument II: Terrorist Activity
Many people will look at the activity among Terrorists to show that membership among Muslims is high. However, in the US terrorist attacks says otherwise. Jews commit more terrorism in the US than Muslims, while Latino's commit the most, at nearly 42% of all terrorist attacks in the US since 1980. This emphasizes the size of non-Muslim Terror Groups.
In the whole of the world, Islamic Attacks are a lot more common. This isn't because of Terrorist Group Memberships, but the environment in the Middle East. Three issues make Islamic Terrorism more common.
The environment in the Middle East is perfect for Terrorism, where 1 terrorist will be more active than group of 10 elsewhere. Islamic Terrorism only accounts for half of all international terrorism, and the terrorism per member ratio is highly inflated amoung their members.
Rebuttal I: List of Terror Groups.
I can, in fact, list off a great deal of groups that are not Muslims.
Most of these groups are, in fact, political and Far-Left groups (2). The reason most of the top terrorists are Muslim isn't because of the number of groups and members, but because of the involvement of large Shia governments. Pro is confusing fame with membership.
Also the attacks by non Muslim groups is going to be less than that of Muslims in America because the Muslims make up a minority of the population here, but the most horrific and devastating attacks were preformed by Muslim terrorist groups and still, after many years of fighting we still haven't managed to kill of Al-Qaeda.
Plus the Red Army Faction last major action was in 1993, the Red Brigades last major action occurred in 2007. The major action of Revolutionary Struggle lasted until 2010. The Shining Path has suffered numerous setbacks such as their leaders being killed in clashes with troops and drops in recruitment.ETA ended its armed activity in 2011 and the IRA had to merge with other groups.The last major action of the Tamil Tigers was in 2009 and the Aum Shinrikyo split. Con is naming many organizations that are not active anymore or have started receding.
"This debate is about whether muslims make up the largest number of terrorists,not why they are terrorists. "
I never brought up why they are terrorists. I brought up why their activity was inflated. And WRONG. This debate is about whether they make up most terrorists, not the largest number. Pro is now trying to shift the goal posts.
Rebuttal I: Terrorist Membership
3 countries making up 25% of terrorist groups still isn't "Most." Pro is cherry-picking what the website said. The website, which I used in my argument, claims 38% of all terrorist groups are in Muslim countries, well under most.
As for making up the minority, this is a pointless argument. Percent of population doesn't equal percent of terrorists. Jews make up twice the population that Muslims make up (1), but only 1% more terrorist attacks (2). Meanwhile, far left groups make up a minuscule percent of Americans, while making up 24% of all terror attacks (compared to 6% Islamic.) As for how horrific an attack was, that's not really relevant. In fact, your second paragraph itself rather irrelevant altogether.
Rebuttal II: List of Terror Groups
The activity level of the group isn't relevant. Unless every member was arrested or died, the terrorists are still there. If Al-Qaeda disbanded, the terrorists wouldn't just go home. Bringing up how The Shining Path has lost many leaders is incredibly irrelevant... Al-Qauda has also lost many high up members. Each group's members are still alive. As for the ceasefires, such as the ETA, the group is still there. The ETA has been through many ceasefires. Con's argument came down to making excuses to ignore that I was able to bring up a list of terrorist groups that weren't Muslim. Every group I mentioned, while not widely active anymore, are still alive and recognized. The groups, and their members, are still there. Here are some more, or are still fully active:
Every group is still alive. Inactivity means nothing. The Shining Path is still alive and active, and ceasefires just means they aren't going to do anything for a few years, but do intend to again someday. Pro's arguments about the groups are more cherry-picked excuses.
Conclusion: Muslim terrorist groups seem large, but only because their Activity-per-member ratio is heavily inflated by the three sources listed in R2 that Pro never tackled. The idea that Islam makes up most terrorists, or that Religious ideologies lead most Terrorist Groups, is simply baseless.
MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Con and Pro lost conduct for forfeiting a round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.