Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military
My opponent contended in a previous debate that Muslims should be banned from serving in the US military. For some reason, he insists that I challenge him instead of the other way around, so here it is.
A Muslim is someone who follows the Islamic faith.
The US military is defined as the military forces of the United States, including the Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Air Force and National Guard.
The burden of proof is on my opponent as he's the one advocating a change in the status quo. My opponent will present his case in the first round, and will not post an argument in the final round so that we both have an equal amount of space to debate. No new arguments in either last round. Good luck.
I accept your definitions. As always, please no talking in circles, beating around the bush and opponents must directly answer any posed questions. Failure to do so should be weighed in the voting.
Well here ya go.. You knew my argument a head of time. lol
When we first consider the question of whether or not Muslims should be allowed to serve in our military we must remember who our enemies are. They are Muslims. They aren’t some foreign nation that attacked us motivated by some reason or another and happen to be Muslim. No. They are Muslim and their faith is what instructs them to attack. There are tons of videos of terrorists reciting verses from the Quran to prove this. (This should be common knowledge by now so no source is necessary but will be provided if asked.)
So the question is, if their faith is what motivates and instructs them to kill non-muslims then why should we let any Muslim serve in our armed forces if they believe in the same thing? That on its face makes no sense. That would be like fighting the Soviet Union and allowing card carrying communists in the military. Do people not see the potential conflict of interest and possible security breaches/dangers in that?
Maybe the politically correct crowd doesn’t. So here’s some proof.
- Abujihaad disclosed the location of Navy ships and their weaknesses to an online forum, while serving on the USS Benfold.
- Major Nidal Hasan who shot 13 people
- Sgt. Akbar threw grenades into the tactical operations center killing or wounding fifteen soldiers.
- Yonathan Melaku, a Marine Reservist and a radical Muslim, shot at the Pentagon and other military buildings in northern Virginia
There’s more so please read entire article. (1)
Is it making a little more sense now as to why we shouldn’t let Muslims serve?
Home grown terrorism is on the rise. If Muslims in this country are becoming more dangerous and violent due to their religious teachings, wouldn’t that then make sense that some of this will spill over into the armed forces? Obviously it has.
"A survey of 100 randomly selected mosques in America finds 81% of them feature Islamic literature " not including the Quran and Sunnah " that advocates violence. And 85% of the imams running the mosques actively recommend these tracts." (2) "Experts indicate 40 separate episodes connecting U.S. mosques to terrorist organizations in the past decade." (3)
Can we still not see the growing trend and danger this presents? Can we not see the common denominator between people like Osama bin Laden and your seemingly normal Muslim neighbor? It’s their religion.
Now before some of you start yelling saying violence is not commanded in the Quran. That those terrorists have hijacked the religion and are misinterpreting Islam let me present you with the posted video. It clears up common misconceptions about Islam. In addition before you still claim that its some modern day terrorists misinterpretations, that the Quran doesn’t command violence except in defense. Let’s look at some history.
The 7th Century Muslim invasion is when Islam spread by the sword from present day Saudi Arabia out to India and Spain. How could a “defensive” war conquer almost the entire known world at the time? That is the antithesis of “defensive”.
200 years ago this “War on Terror” actually began when President Thomas Jefferson declared war on the Barbary Pirates of North Africa (Muslims) For a long time we payed the jizya(tax) on non-Muslims so they would stop attacking our trade ships, taking our stuff, and killing or selling our sailors into slavery. Jefferson became fed up and went and visited the Muslims and asked why they keep doing this. They said, because their god commanded them. Just to make clear, Jefferson got his own copy of the Quran and read it and confirmed what they said. So, he said enough and sent our Navy to destroy them. (4)
- Violent Muslim teachings are on the rise in America
- We see an increasing trend of Muslim service members either killing other soldiers or giving away secret information
- Obvious conflicts of interest with Muslim service members
- Islam has ALWAYS commanded violence
Questions you must answer.
1) With what you know now about Islam and what it instructs its followers to do, how do you feel about people who believe the same violent religion invented by Muhammad and used as a justification for terror since its inception?
2) Can a person who believes in the same religion as Osama bin Laden really be trusted with top secret material or the lives of fellow non-Muslim service men when Islam commands taqiyya, given the prior incidents with Muslims killing soldiers and divulging information?
3) Can you see the potential conflict of interest with Muslims in the military based on the multiple events I cited in regards to Muslims either killing fellow soldiers or releasing secret information?
4) If you are a non-Muslim and had to chose. Would you pick Jesus or Muhammad as a neighbor?
5) If I were to lock you in a room with someone who professes to be a devout Muslim or a devout Christian, which would you pick?
Response to #2 and Part C:
You’re misunderstanding. This is a philosophical argument about “should” not “could”. Example “Should we prohibit the teaching of all religions?”
Pro argument would be, “Yes, religion has been the major cause of bloodshed all over this planet. It only serves to promote hate of other people”. A counter would be,“No, religion serves to pull people together; no religion doesn’t mean no violence. Did you forget about all the good done by hundreds of religious charities around the world?”
You seem to think that I only see Islam as a threat. I recognize there are other threats. What I am saying is that out of the threats, ISLAM IS THE GREATEST. My argument is based on calculated risks and probabilities. We can’t eliminate all threats buy why shouldn’t we eliminate the greatest threat if we have the ablility?
In his post-9/11 analysis, Dr. Dahl found that of the 109 failed attacks, 76 were inspired by radical Islamist beliefs. (3)
Here’s a list of successful Islamic terror attacks in the US. (4)
“This tells us that if we want to ban from the military people holding the religious beliefs of terrorists we would have to ban pretty much everybody.”No. The argument is banning the people that hold the same beliefs as our enemy for obvious conflicts of interest.
“The US banning Islam... confirm the anti-US beliefs many Muslims feel.”
Thanks for confirming that many Muslims are anti-American. “This is no way to go about mending relations with the Middle East.” This is largely irrelevant given the fact that they hate us BECAUSE WE ARE INFIDELS AND THEIR RELIGION COMMANDS THEM TO KILL US. They already are anti-US.
Liberals in the US
I see no point in this at all. You also gave no proof of how it would actually hinder the military from killing our enemies.
“If the US wanted to destroy Islam...” Our country’s strategic failures are irrelevant in this debate.
“Con's comparison of Muslims in the military... Islam is a religion, not an ideology.”
You keep making this argument that Islam is not an ideology, when it is (6) It’s a political ideology with laws that govern every aspect of life. To not follow the laws is to not follow Islam. To not follow Islam is to not be a Muslim.
Second, do our enemies not recite verses from the Quran and words of Muhammad as motivation for their actions? To deny this is to deny reality or you know it to be the truth and you're lying. (See video) It’s also important to note the killer was born in Britain. So I guess Western ideology didn’t trump Islam’s ideology according to those Muslims. Islam IS THE IDEOLOGY ADVOCATED BY OUR ENEMIES.
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Still think Islam is not an ideology? Have you heard of Sharia Law? It’s the law of Islam. If you are a Muslim you have to follow Sharia for it was revealed from Allah to Muhammad. It is complete and perfect according to Muslims. Here, read these two sources and tell me again Islam is not an ideology. (7,8)
The Quran is bad
You need to recognize the difference in what someone does that happens to be of a particular religion and what a religion actual instructs. There’s a difference. Show me one single verse where Jesus says to kill all non-believers. Jesus abrogated the O.T. and taught love. The concept of “hell” is unbiblical. (9, 10) Either way it is ruled as God’s judgment on non-believers is it not? So your argument of Christianity here is irrelevant.
Then you argue that it doesn’t matter what a particular religion teaches? Seriously?
Back to your definition of Muslim - “A Muslim is someone who follows the Islamic faith”
Yes, and Islam DEMANDS a Muslim’s FULL ALLEGIANCE. Failure to do so is to not be a Muslim. You are now an “infidel” according to Muhammad. An example of a good Muslim (according to Islam itself) is Osama bin Laden.
“doesn't justify banning Muslims from the military as a large chunk of Mosques do not feature any violent literature.” I guess you consider 19% a “large chunk” lol “Recall the violence in other Holy books” You gave 1 example from 1 source that commanded violence against a tribe of ancients that no longer exists. I like how you think whistleblower like Manning is as dangerous. How many Americans died from that? Zero?
“There is a distinct difference between not letting into the military enemies of the United States and not letting in Muslims.”Again, our enemies are Muslims. We are not fighting a single nation but an ideology (Islam)
“The conflict we see today is not Islam vs. US, it's backlash to US intervention.” This is an outright lie as proven by my “bizarre” citation of African Pirates 200 years ago. Nice how you beat around the bush by not acknowledging that they were Muslim and motivated by the Quran and words of their prophet! You simply dismiss the 7th Century Muslim invasion. US intervention didn’t exist back then. I guess US intervention also established the Ottoman Empire, caused the deaths of nearly 2 million Armenian Christians. Yeah, these modern “radical” Muslims have Islam all wrong.
“we need to disallow Christians from the armed forces due to the crusades and Native American genocide.” Irrelevant, we are at war with Muslims NOT CHRISTIANS. Christianity doesn’t advocate those things and the Crusades aren’t commanded by Jesus.
Your answers beat around the bush nicely
1 Islam is an ideology
2 ditto ^
3 A lie. There’s a clear conflict
4 Proves teaching of Jesus superior therefore followers more likely to do good than bad.
5 beating the bush, I told you to pick (loss of points)
1 A Muslim is someone who follows Islam in entirety. To not follow is to not be Muslim. Cons point to not let in “extreme” and “anti-US” Muslims are simply REAL MUSLIMS. Ergo she is arguing my point that we not let in Muslims.
2 Of all the internal threats to our military, Islam is the greatest. We can’t eliminate all threats but why shouldn’t we eliminate the greatest threat if it were possible?
3 Obvious cited conflicts of interest if we allow Muslims in military
4 Islam is an ideology despite my opponent’s claim. Thus she proves her contention that ideology has a greater effect than country you live in.
5 Islamic terror has been around BEFORE US INTERVENTION
New Questions: Answer all points
1 You said religious teachings don’t matter. Say I invented a religion that among its teachings advocated the killing of all Americans and not to take Jews and Christians as friends (Islam says the same thing)for they are the worst of creatures. Should someone part of my religion be allowed in the American military? Isn’t the fact that someone follows me enough of a psychological indicator to disallow American military service? Forget military, would you even associate with such a person?
2 Which person is more likely to be a terrorist, a professed Christian or Muslim?
3 Who said this “I would love to be martyred in God’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred”. "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me”?
Would you honestly trust you life to a person who’s leader said this?
Thanks to my opponent for his round. I'll just go over my case, then my opponents case and respond to his arguments.
Con essentially concedes my framework. His only argument is that the debate is about "should" not "could", despite this being entirely irrelevant to my counter proposal of increasing selectivity to prevent any anti-Americans from joining the armed forces, instead of simply lumping together all Muslims and saying "you can't join".
A) Irrelevance of religion
Dropped and therefore conceded. This is a heavy blow for Con, as in this contention I argued that social/political beliefs are more relevant factors to judging someone's potential threat, terrorism has been perpetrated by non-Muslims in the past (turning the argument, my opponent tries to keep all Muslims out, terrorists or not, and I try to keep all terrorists out). I also argued that the cause of Islamic anti-US backlash is interventionism in the Middle East (dropped) as the hegemonic struggles of the coming era will revolve around control of the seas around Asia (dropped). This combined with historic resistance to repealing outdated policies shows that disallowing Muslims soldiers will serve only to prevent able bodied soldiers and technicians from serving in the conflicts of the future.
My opponent only argues against this that Islam is the greatest threat America faces, but I'm quite confused as to where he draws this conclusion considering he literally dropped my argument showing how it's anti-Americanism not Islam that is the enemy.
Con argues that I "confirmed" that many Muslims are anti-American. I never denied it and I gave a more plausible alternative reason for why this backlash occurs. I encourage my opponent to read the CATO analysis, it's quite extensive in showing that anti-US resentment stems from intervention. Indeed it appears that the Jihad and Holy War terrorists call for isn't even serious to them, it's just rhetoric. Bin Laden may have declared that the 9/11 attacks were "holy war" but when he actually outlined his motivations they were literally *all* based off of Western foreign policy including: "Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnyaa , supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia,U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq."
Con is simply wrong in stating that the cause of terrorism is Islam. We can see historically that Christians also committed terrorism, atrocities, and widespread violence but the reason was the ideology those particular people held (suppress all others), not the religion itself. Same with Islam, people should be judged as individuals not groupings.
I don't think Con really understood this arguments and the importance of the middle east. The backlash against the US implementing a sweeping anti-Muslim policy would be vast. If Con thinks there's terrorism now, he should wait until his policy confirms many of the beliefs Muslims on the fence in the middle east hold about the US hating them. It's dubious that the US could mend it's relations with the middle east and therefore actually solve most terrorism by turning against Muslims. It's also unlikely that the US could keep it's influence within the region as many of it's old Realpolitik allied dictators are overthrown and replaced by democratically elected leaders. Middle Eastern public opinion is important to US interests there and being blatantly anti-Muslim is probably the worst possible way to fix things.
Con also fails to engage my argument about liberals in the US. He says I didn't prove how this would hinder the military, but he dropped the warrant about how the Republican party is becoming more libertarian, so the democratic party needs its base to continue to support the military and intervention to maintain US hegemony.
Con tries to argue that the debate is a philosophical one and not about what we can do, but we are talking about a policy change that he wants implemented. There's no reason to implement a policy if it won't work. You can extend this argument and vote Pro.
Ideology vs. Religion
Con has this frankly ridiculous idea that religion and ideology are synonymous and that Islam is an ideology. First, even if it's true this ignores the warrant of my argument that the issue is anti-Americanism, not Islam even if both these were idologies. But it isn't an ideology, Religion as we all know is a comprehensive belief set that someone holds about the spiritual or supernatural realm, and an ideology is, as my opponents definitions show, a belief set or worldview about the natural realm. These are clearly different, and it's the ideology that Islam should take over everything else that is dangerous not Islam in itself or people who profess to be Muslim without holding beliefs in Islamic domination. Moreover even if Islam actually demands violence against infidels, the military can only possibly determine if someone is Muslim by how they identify themselves and most self identified Muslims don't hold terroristic ideology. Judaism has Mosaic law, but it isn't an ideology but a religion, same with Sharia. Ideology is an interpretation of religious law and it's application to real life.
Who is the enemy?
Con misses the point of my rebuttal. The US went into the middle east to secure it's interests and combat terrorism, it didn't go in to kill all Muslims. To suggest so is absurd, and Con never gives any warrant for why Islam is the enemy instead of Anti US sentiment. Prefer my arguments.
Con essentially concedes the entire debate, arguing "You need to recognize the difference in what someone does that happens to be of a particular religion and what a religion actual instructs." This was my entire point, the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to kill infidels and Con hasn't proven they will. Con basically drops my turn of the argument--remember that my plan solves for terrorism better than his does, so even being generous and assuming his arguments are all valid there's no reason for banning Muslims from the 19% of Pro-US Mosques. Recall also that Con hasn't even explained what "violent literature" even means. It doesn't matter if Hell is ultimately unbiblical or Jesus absolved the OT, what matters is that the teachings of many churches could also be thought of as violent (like Hell, taught in the majority of churches) so Cons argument is nonunique. Con ridicules my argument of how any anti-American can be dangerous, somehow thinking it's funny that Manning's leaks destroyed much of the military's credibility by revealing larger civilian casualties and diplomatic blunders.
My opponent tries to ridicule my argument by pointing out historical wrongs committed by Muslims. Never mind the fact pretty much every religion has genocide on it's hands, Cons argument doesn't even follow. He said it himself, it's not nearly as relevant what a religion teaches as it is the actions of it's followers. Con doesn't understand the argument--motivations of pirates 200 years ago don't translate into motives for modern terrorists, my explanation is far more plausible than Cons.
I answered my opponents questions last round out of courtesy, but there's no rule in the debate that I have to. Since Con saw fit to call me a liar and accuse me of "beating around the bush" I'm not going to waste characters answering his leading questions.
Con tries to make a big deal of the conduct vote. Since he brought it up...
Con has called me a liar, laughed at my arguments, and accused me of dodging his arguments. I didn't intend to misconstrue my opponents source, my argument applies for 7 cases just as well as 4.
Vote Pro, even if you accept my opponents case my case solves and outweighs.
You first dodge my example by calling it “bizarre”. You dodge all my questions so it’s not an accusation it’s the truth. You beat around the bush, refuse to answer and don't even bother with following my sources. What kind of debate am I to have with someone like you? Turns out you weren’t worth my time.
The argument weighs heavier in my favor with it extended to 7 compared to 1 Pvt. Manning. (BTW there’s more than just 7, 7's enough to prove my point) Despite my opponent labeling him as “anti-American” he's a whistle blower and thought he was helping his country.
His attorney, “this was a person who had true intentions. He wanted to help America. He wanted to get people to think about what was going on in Iraq. And he didn’t have an evil motive in what he did.” (3) Again, no one died and I’d argue that by the public knowing these things it prevents us from doing more of the same which would ease “anti-us” sentiment in the middle east would it not according to you? So you’re listing of him is irrelevant. Why don’t you throw in Edward Snowden maybe that’ll bolster your case some too?
Either way its irrelevant as to what some Muslims think in the M.E. of the US. They are already Anti-US as we are infidels and Islam demands our death or subjugation. This is why Christians are slaughtered and churches are burned down. Look through these sources and tell me how many countries have an “interventionist” policy. (1,2)
“Con essentially concedes my framework. His only argument is that the debate is about "should" not "could", despite this being entirely irrelevant”
My argument is entirely relevant because you are arguing something I’m not. The feasibility”of keeping out all Muslims is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE. If we had the ability, should we? Just like in my example, we can’t prohibit the teaching of religions but we can still have the debate. It simply serves to educate both the good and bad done in the name of religion. This debate serves to educate people on what it means to be a Muslim and what Islam instructs. Get it?
You’re counter proposal is irrelevant except that it serves to prove my point. The concession you made about keeping out “anti-US” Muslims, is MY ARGUMENT. How you say? Well I’ve proven that by being a Muslim, you’re AUTOMATICALLY anti-American. I’ve outlined exactly what it means to be a Muslim and what Islam demands. To NOT FOLLOW ISLAM IN ENTIRETY IS TO NOT BE A MUSLIM!
So the “peaceful” Muslim that doesn’t follow Sharia, doesn’t fight unbelievers is (according to Islam) an INFIDEL and not a Muslim. This version of a Muslim would promptly be beaten or executed by Muhammad. So you saying we should let this guy in the military ISN’T proving your case because THIS guy ISN’T MUSLIM.
This entire debate is a thought experiment to educate people about what Islam really instructs and what it means to be a Muslim.
“Dropped and therefore conceded.”
I dropped and conceded nothing.
This is a heavy blow for Con as in this contention I argued that social/political beliefs are more relevant factors to judging someone's potential threat
I’m beginning to think you’re not even listening to a thing I say. You’re assertion is correct. However, it’s heavy blow for YOU not me. Forgive the capital letters but I feel I need them because you aren’t listening. You just keep talking in circles. You also ignore the British born Muslim in the video which proves MY CASE.
How’s it a blow to you? Well I proved that Islam IS AN IDEOLOGY. Did you forget Sharia Law, it governs the “natural realm” as well or did you not bother to read that source either?
As an ideology it trumps the country the Muslim is currently living as I've proven. You however don’t counter any of my points proving it’s an ideology but keep claiming it isn’t. This is TALKING IN CIRCLES. But I guess if you repeat something enough people will think it’s true.
“These are clearly different” Yes religion and ideology are different.
“and it's the ideology that Islam should take over everything else that is dangerous not Islam in itself”
If you were listening I proved that IS WHAT ISLAM INSTRUCTS. That is the ideology of Islam!
“The world will not come to an end,” said the Prophet Muhammad, “ until a man from my family (Ahlulbayt) and of my name SHALL BE MASTER OF THE WORLD...” (4)
“ Fight those who believe NOT IN ALLAH nor the Last Day... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 9:29
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and RELIGION BE ONLY FOR ALLAH..." Quran 2:193
“While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews”.. He said to them "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that THE EARTH BELONGS TO ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE, and I WANT TO EXPEL YOU FROM THIS LAND..” Bukhari 53:392
Still think Islam is not an ideology. Are these 4 sources enough or should I post 7? Should I mail you a Quran and the Hadiths for more evidence?
Regardless if we are in the Middle East now, Islam would STILL BE A THREAT because the prophet and Allah commanded fighting till “RELIGION BE ONLY FOR ALLAH”! Thus your point is refuted.
This circles back to those “bizarre” pirates... You know, the Muslim pirates capturing and killing American sailors BEFORE our “interventionism”.
If we packed up and left today, Iran would still be pursuing nuclear missiles and trying to take over the world! Why? Islam!
“It doesn't matter if Hell is ultimately unbiblical or Jesus absolved the OT.. so Cons argument is nonunique.” Yes it does matter. Unlike what you claim, it DOES MATTER WHAT A RELIGION TEACHES! And the concept of hell itself doesn’t call for violence on nonbeliever by believers. Hell is reserved as GOD’S PUNISHMENT. So you’re argument is “nonsensical”
“He said it himself, it's not nearly as relevant what a religion teaches as it is the actions of it's followers.”
I said there’s a difference not that its not relevant! How dishonest are you going to be? It is completely relevant what the religion instructs! If Christianity doesn’t instruct the Crusades then the Crusades CAN’T BE BLAMED ON CHRISTIANITY. But if Islam instructs the mass killings of non-Muslims then ISLAM IS TO BLAME! Get it? If the religion commands violence we must guard ourselves against those that profess to be of that religion.
“Con doesn't understand the argument--motivations of pirates 200 years ago don't translate into motives for modern terrorists, my explanation is far more plausible than Cons.”
That’s it, keep talking in circles with NO PROOF. I however have proven that 200 years ago the motive was Islam as it is today.
Islam calls terror for more than 1 reason. #1 is to establish worldwide Islam, another is for “making mischief” in Muslim land (see video). Thus another aspect of Islam that calls for Jihad. If we aren’t “making mischief” (US intervention) Islam still commands Muslims to kill us. That’s why it was done in the past BEFORE our mischief making.
“I answered my opponents questions last round out of courtesy...”
Then you should have objected. But simply ignoring them doesn’t bode well on your part since you are dodging questions. You are supposed to answer questions or what’s the point of a debate? You seem a prime candidate to replace Jay Carney though.
1 a moderate Muslim is not a Muslim according to Islam
2 The feasibility of keeping out Muslims is irrelevant in this debate
3 CON concedes we keep out “extreme” Muslims, who are simply real Muslims thus proving my case to not let them in
4 Islam is reason for both past and present Jihad/Terror
5 Our enemy is worldwide and motivated by Islam, thus obvious proven conflicts of interest to allowing Muslims in military
6 The ideology that is Islam trumps the Country’s ideology
Thanks to my opponent for the debate. I think this debate is an exceedingly clear decision, and in this round I will attempt to illustrate why I think so.
I solve for Con's impacts:
Con makes makes no attempt to engage my counter-proposal of increasing selectivity to prevent any anti-Americans from joining the armed forces. His only argument is to try and ridicule my example of other, non Muslim anti-Americans in the military by citing, of all people, Manning's attorney in his trial for treason. Nevertheless, my point was to illustrate that Muslims aren't the only people who could bring potential harm to the military--Con drops the harm to the military that occurred from the leaks. Con never seriously argues (for obvious reasons) that no non Muslim could be a terrorist or harm/betray the military (like Manning who was just convicted of treason...) so increasing background checks and selectivity to ensure that no anti-Americans get through is ideal. Especially if Con wants this debate to not take place in reality but rather in a some ideal fantasy land where we can actually effectively ban any group of our choosing, banning all potential terrorists instead of just some (Muslims) along with a much larger component of innocent non-threats is clearly superior.
Con makes no response to my argument that the conflicts of the future will take place in the seas of East Asia and other places where US and Chinese hegemony collide, not the Middle East and the historic difficulty of repealing old policies. This means that in the more critical conflicts of the future in the Con world we have a lot fewer soldiers for no reason.
Con drops my argument and the CATO card explaining that the calls for Jihad are just rhetoric and terroristic grievances are all based off Western foreign policy. This shows that, like I've argued the entire round, the motivation for terrorism stems from anti Western sentiment due to Western meddling. Con tries to show that terrorism has to stem from Islam because centuries ago violence did, but he makes no link to the real world of today.
Con makes no response in his last round to the importance of the Democratic party to the future of US military hegemony and how banning Muslims will turn off liberals from the military. Vote Con to cripple the military.
Con completely fails to counter my argument about the anti-US backlash that *will* occur if we implement a sweeping anti-Islamic policy for no reason. Con contends it doesn't matter since people in the Middle East are already anti-US, but we all know that not everyone in the Middle East holds these perceptions of the US as the enemy (although many more will if we ban Muslims from the military), and Cons policy will serve only to enforce and solidify the anti-US beliefs of those who do hold them. Vote Con to increase terrorism, and vote Con to increase anti-Western governments in charge of key oil supplies because Con dropped my argument about the Middle East becoming more democratic as old pro-US dictators are overthrown.
Honestly even being generous and granting Con limited solvency for terrorism and somehow discount my counterplan, this contention alone still vastly outweighs any impacts he may have. It's also noteworthy that throughout the debate my opponent hardly argued any impact instead preferring to argue that Muslims are bad. But we have no impact--HOW MUCH would terrorism decline? Even ignoring every argument I made entirely there still isn't enough reason to change the status quo!
Either you go with Cons interpretation of the resolution or mine. I argue that since we're debating a matter of policy, we should base the debate on reality and real world impacts. Con clearly loses here because outside of arguing about the meaning of should he drops my argument about how potential terrorists would just pretend to not be Muslim and still join, meaning that his case doesn't even solve for itself and the only impacts in the round are the negative impact from banning honest, non terroristic Muslims and backlash. If you go with Cons interpretation of the resolution where we can completely exclude groups, excluding anti-Americans is a lot less arbitrary and more effective than excluding Muslims, and captures all of the potential Muslim terrorists Cons case solves for.
Who is a Muslim?
You can extend my argument about how the only way the military could know who is a Muslim is their self identification. Even if you buy Cons argument about how Islam is inherently violent (you shouldn't--other religious texts contain violence and have had terrorists adhere from their faiths and I give a more plausible reason for terrorism than my opponent), you can still vote Pro because the vast majority of self-identified Muslims don't have terroristic beliefs and Con certainly hasn't proven that they do. Con may contend that they aren't "real" Muslims--ridiculous because people of all religions disagree about the meaning of scriptures ALL THE TIME- but the military banning "Muslims" would ban all self identified Muslims, not just Cons "real" evil Muslims. Prefer my plan that actually solves for all anti Americans. If Con contends that this is a hypothetical debate not based off reality, my plan of banning all anti-Americans has more positive impact and is clearly more moral as it doesn't ban thousands of people from the military unfairly.
Ideology vs. Religion
Con insists on sticking to his argument that Islam is an ideology. Why? Because Sharia law. Con drops that other religions such as Judaism are not ideologies but also have legal systems, but insists on arguing that the existence of Sharia law proves Islam is an ideology. Con ignores my argument about how ideology, in relation to Sharia law, would revolve around he application of Sharia law to the real/modern world. Con just simply fails to prove that all Muslims must advocate Sharia law and world domination because some scripts of the Quran advocate it. He argues that if someone doesn't follow every command of the Quran they are not a Muslim but an Infidel--this is in conflict with my far more rational argument that a Muslim is someone who self identifies as following the Islamic faith, but even ignoring that this is absurd. People break the commands of their religions ALL THE TIME, no one follows the entire text of a Holy book word for word, and religious scholars of all faiths are in continual disagreement about the meaning of their texts. This means that while some Muslims and Mosques will accept a literal interpretation of the Quran and want Islamic domination and are therefore dangerous, many others will not. Con makes no attempt to illustrate how many Muslims believe in a strict literal interpretation of the Quran--it's probably not many, or the number of terrorists would surely be larger.
Con again drops my argument about how he never explains what "violent literature" means, and that even if we consider it dangerous there are still many Mosques not advocating it. Remember also the a literal interpretation of the Bible means people burn in eternal conscious torment for all eternity but we can both agree that many Christians who's churches teach this are ultimately decent people, so Con doesn't show a huge danger from Mosques reading distasteful literature as long as their people don't act on it. My plan is clearly superior to Cons blind ban on all self proclaimed Muslims.
I also want to let PRO know that her dodging my questions, misrepresentation of facts, and twisting my words essentially stalled progress of this debate and my arguments.
Never again thett... Never again...
|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:||4||0|
|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:||3||0|