The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TheUnapologeticTruth
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military

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 2 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,936 times Debate No: 37015
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)

 

thett3

Pro

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.
TheUnapologeticTruth

Con

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)



In conclusion:



- 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?



1 http://www.danielpipes.org......


2 http://news.investors.com......


3 http://www.clarionproject.org......


4 http://www.citizenwarrior.com......


Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

=My case=

Framework

1. As the one advocating a change in the status quo, the burden of proof falls upon my opponent.

2. People should be treated as individuals rather than as a collective to maximize military effectiveness. If there's compelling evidence that an individual is from a high-risk social group, the military rather than outright prohibiting that individual from serving instead ought to be evaluated on an individual basis. The military being more selective about the social beliefs and potential political extremism/ psychological states of potential recruits, especially before pushing them into high stress situations like battlefields. This has the added benefit of excluding non-Muslim terrorists/psychopaths.

Contentions:

A) Islam is irrelevant

Social attitude and political values are far more indicative of whether one will be an anti-US zealot than their spiritual beliefs. This is why there are several well documented cases of far-right terrorism[1] and the infamous Oklahoma city bombing was perpetrated by a white atheist[2]. 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. My opponent needs to construct some kind of mechanism or comparison to determine if Muslims are

The conflict we see today is not Islam vs. US, it's backlash to US intervention[3]. Banning Muslims from the military is a dumb policy because once the West leaves the middle east mostly alone Islamic terrorism will decrease. The important conflicts facing the world will not be fought in the Middle east, but rather naval conflicts around the South China Sea[4] as the US and China engage in hegemonic competition. DADT tells us how difficult it is to retract outdated military policies, and as Islamic terrorism is a result of US intervention, once the US shifts its power projections to other regions the policy banning Muslims will become even more useless and prevent the US from accessing a large subset of its population for military manpower.

B) Backlash

Anti-US sentiment

The perception Muslims have of the US is of a country prejudiced against them--and they hold this perception for good reason, Islam is by far the most negatively viewed religion in the US[5]. The US banning Islam in its armed forces will only increase this perception and confirm the anti-US beliefs many Muslims feel. This is no way to go about mending relations with the Middle East.

Liberals in the US

Banning Muslims from service would cause a huge backlash against the military from American liberals who believe in equality and acceptance. Since the democratic party holds the Senate and the White House along, with current trends indicating a demographic shift in their favor, harming the military in the eyes of liberals would obviously harm the effectiveness of the military. This backlash, combined with the growing libertarian wing of the Republican party, could perhaps help usher in a new era of the US refusing to intervene to secure its interests, making it lose its hegemony.

C) Ineffective.

Even if everything my opponent argues is true, Muslims intending to terrorize the US or the military would just get in by professing an abandonment of the faith, and pretending to become atheists or some other religion. There's no litmus test to determine whether an individual holds anti-American sentiment, or what their true religion is.


=Opponents case=

Who is the enemy?

My opponent provides no warrant for the United States being enemies with Islam. The United States has enemies who are Muslim to be sure such as Russia's lapdog Iran and Al Qaeda, but the United States is engaged in a war on terrorism, not a war on Islam. If the US wanted to destroy Islam it would just turn the Middle East into a radioactive cesspool, not put boots on the ground and nation build. Con's comparison of Muslims in the military to communists in the military of yesteryear fails because communism is an ideology explicitly advocated by the enemy. A better comparison is disallowing extremists from joining the military because anti-US extremism is an ideology held and advocated by the enemy. Islam is a religion, not an ideology.

The Quran is bad

Cons scare tactics need to be ignored--no doubt the Quran contains violent verses, as does the Bible. Taken literally, God in the Bible orders his followers to commit genocide against the Canaanites and maintains that people who have never heard of Jesus are condemned to eternal conscious torment. Other religions have violent verses as well, it matters not what a holy book commands but rather what adherents actually do. One is not a good person because they profess to be a Christian, despite Jesus being a good person, and people are not bad for professing to be Muslims even if we grant that Islam is bad/violent. You should prefer my case as it provides a better mechanism for weeding out bad people of all religions.

Muslim terrorists

Four cases are ultimately irrelevant in deciding policy for an entire faith. I would also submit that the individuals who, by a wide margin, have hurt the US military the most recently were not Muslims but rather leakers such as Bradley Manning. Again my opponent needs to prove why all Muslims should be banned just because of a few members of its fringe elements. Recall that Christians too have committed acts of terrorism. It's anti-US sentiment, not Islam, that is the issue.

Home grown terrorism

My opponent provides an easily turnable argument that supports my counter proposal. Even if you assume this argument is completely sound, it doesn't justify banning Muslims from the military as a large chunk of Mosques do not feature any violent literature. Again, this is an argument for being more selective on who is allowed to join the military to prevent any anti-US zealots, not an argument for outright banning Muslims. I see no real need to dispute my opponents statistics--to be sure, I'm sure there are some methodological problems in the poll (what does "advocating violence" mean? Recall the violence in other Holy books)--but this simply fails on so many levels to justify keeping ALL Muslims from serving, even if they're patriotic Americans who go to a pro-US mosque. There is a distinct difference between not letting into the military enemies of the United States and not letting in Muslims.

History

My opponent argues that Islam is inherently violent because Muslims conquered a lot of territory in the Middle Ages. If we are to take this argument as valid, we need to disallow Christians from the armed forces due to the crusades and Native American genocide.

He also bizarrely posits that Muslims are violent because African Pirates attacked US ships 200 years ago.



My opponent requests that I answer some questions, so here they are:

1. Indifferent since religion doesn't indicate anything, ideology does.

2. Again, ideology is a better bright line than religion is for peoples behavior.

3. No

4. Jesus

5. Indifferent



Vote Con.


Sources:

1. http://www.salon.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.cato.org...
4. http://www.foreignpolicy.com...
5. http://www.gallup.com...

TheUnapologeticTruth

Con

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?”

Rebuttals:

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.

Ideology: (5)

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.

“4 cases are ultimately irrelevant..”Actually there were 7 cases in the link. Loss of conduct points here for either, A) lying B) misrepresentation of facts and not bothering to look at my sources. How can I possibly have an intellectually honest debate with someone who doesn’t even bother to inform their self?

“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)

History

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)

Conclusion

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?

Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his round. I'll just go over my case, then my opponents case and respond to his arguments.

=My case=

Framework

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.

B) Backlash

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[1] 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.


C) Effectiveness

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.

=Opponents case=

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.

The Quran

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[2].

History

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.

Questions

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.

Conduct

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.

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
TheUnapologeticTruth

Con

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.

FINAL NAIL

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.

Conclusion

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





Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

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.

=My case=

A) Irrelevance

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.

B) Backlash

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!

C) Ineffective

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.

=Opponents case=

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.


Vote Pro.


TheUnapologeticTruth

Con

I would like to remind everyone that I can't post an argument this round.

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...
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Godwin's law is alive and well.

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
mikal...

"Again I urge you to embrace logic." lmao this is hilarious coming from you.. Ok lets see if you have any logic. I will just pick one of your arguments..

Continuing with Hitler... Hitler was a politician and a master propagandist.. if there's one thing we can agree on is that politicians lie to garner support.. Do you think the predominantly Catholic Germany would've supported Hitler if he publicly said, "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."... "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death"..."The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

Now the other question is, what devout Christian would say such things about Christianity? They wouldn't obviously...

If you can't see the logic in that then there's no helping you...

And for the last EFFING TIME! Hell is unbiblical! I proved that in my debate which you obviously didn't read...
"He is not my savior and you can keep your egotistical bearded tyrant to yourself."
That's ok, Jesus still loves you...

Im not even getting onto your other points because they were just as ignorant and incorrect as these two from you..
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
(8) There are moderate Muslims

(a) Liberal movements within Islam *Salah Choudhury *Muslim Zionism *Democratic Muslims in Denmark

Here is an initial set of principles for moderate Muslim:

Non-Muslims have same and equal civil rights as Muslims.

Non-Muslims shall not be subject to dhimmitude.

Governments shall not impose Islamic or Sharia Law.

Allow free and open inquiry into the origins of Islam without reprisal.

Freedom to publicly criticize Mohammad the Prophet and Allah.

Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony).

Muslim women may marry non-Muslim men without reprisal.

The acceptance of the validity of other religions, and the freedom to publicly display and practice other religions.

Muslims are allowed convert to other religions without reprisal.

States should not impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan.

(9) While there are a lot that are leaving for fear of conversion, there are just as many leaving because they want to practice Islam without the violent acts that it embraces.

(10) Irrelevant , i have shown the difference between extremism and moderates.

I am not responding after this, because you have an extreme bias and lack of tolerance and it distorts you perception of reality.

I will say that Chrisanity is no better than Islam.

When you compare the two, both command you to submit to a savior. Both preach that if you do not submit, you will end up suffering. Both also condone heinous acts. You can put fabreeze on Chrisanity all you want, but it does not get rid of the stench that follows it.

Again I urge you to embrace logic. Before you tell someone they are not allowed to worship and believe what they want, especially moderates. You offer to give up your freedoms as well. There are and can be peaceful Muslims, just as not all Christianity want to slaughter infants.

At the end, all religion is corru
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
(8) There are moderate Muslims

(a) Liberal movements within Islam *Salah Choudhury *Muslim Zionism *Democratic Muslims in Denmark

Here is an initial set of principles for moderate Muslim:

Non-Muslims have same and equal civil rights as Muslims.

Non-Muslims shall not be subject to dhimmitude.

Governments shall not impose Islamic or Sharia Law.

Allow free and open inquiry into the origins of Islam without reprisal.

Freedom to publicly criticize Mohammad the Prophet and Allah.

Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony).

Muslim women may marry non-Muslim men without reprisal.

The acceptance of the validity of other religions, and the freedom to publicly display and practice other religions.

Muslims are allowed convert to other religions without reprisal.

States should not impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan.

(9) While there are a lot that are leaving for fear of conversion, there are just as many leaving because they want to practice Islam without the violent acts that it embraces.

(10) Irrelevant , i have shown the difference between extremism and moderates.

I am not responding after this, because you have an extreme bias and lack of tolerance and it distorts you perception of reality.

I will say that Chrisanity is no better than Islam.

When you compare the two, both command you to submit to a savior. Both preach that if you do not submit, you will end up suffering. Both also condone heinous acts. You can put fabreeze on Chrisanity all you want, but it does not get rid of the stench that follows it.

Again I urge you to embrace logic. Before you tell someone they are not allowed to worship and believe what they want, especially moderates. You offer to give up your freedoms as well. There are and can be peaceful Muslims, just as not all Christianity want to slaughter infants.

At the end, all religion is corru
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
(6) What the bible commands is irrelevant.

It and the Quran are a Catalyst for hate.

Even if you were to use hermoneutics to try and decipher what the author intended for specific verses to mean, there is no way to tell if that is even coherent in itself. You still have to accept all the heinous acts that were committed in the bible. Look at how many times God ordered the slaughter of man, woman, and child alike. Just because they were in a fight for land. That is the same effin concept as Islam, except it looks more pretty. That is considering even if you believe the bible is true. It is in no way historically or scientifically accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is infallible.

If you want to believe in talking snakes, raising people from the dead, or slaughtering masses in the name of the lord Jesus Christ, that is your faith. Just as belief in Allah is a Muslims faith and choice. Just as some Christians are non violent and leave out the evil parts of the bible, Muslims can do the same and are doing the same especially within America.

(7) He calls for submission or suffer and eternity in hell. He can not simply let whom wants to worship him worship him. If you chose not to him, you will suffer. Also you will not just suffer, you will suffer the worst type of suffering for all of eternity. As I have stated, that is just as bad or worse.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
(4) your leader is just as bad. He calls for the submission of all human kind or they will suffer an eternity in a lake of fire, where they will be tortured non stop. That is just as bad if not worse. I have even quoted you statistics to show that under 7 percent will never act on their belief, and that is just in the middle east. That does not even consider Muslims who are reworking Islam itself. Most Muslims in America are peaceful, and which is why it should be adopted on a personal basis. If not that is stereotyping verbatim.

I even got to visit Afghanistan directly. The major city holds laws of outdated traditions. The people in it also do not necessarily agree with it as well. I was over their for mission work when I was planning on going to seminary, and every night even though I was considered an infidel. I was also given lots of food, water, shelter, an protection. They have even had multiple comedians go over there to do shows as well. Would you believe that Jeff Dunham is the most favored comedian in the middle east? They actually have a sense of humor as well. Not all of them are as evil as you think. That would be the same as me labeling Chieftains inherently evil because of the atrocities in the crusades. If you want to say that it brings more harm than good, that is a fact along with any other religion you can think of. Saying outlaw it in the USA is an ignorant statement, and again when asking someone else to give up their freedoms, you must be willing to give up yours

(5) You have to submit to Jesus to make it into heaven, or God. Whether you believe they are one in the same is erroneous. If you do not repent and accept him, you will suffer for all eternity. That is a prettier version of Islam itself. It is literally saying, accept me or suffer.

" Jesus is the savior of ALL men"

He is not my savior and you can keep your egotistical bearded tyrant to yourself.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
(1) Whether or not you want to believe that Hitler was religious he quoted and directly said he was doing Gods work in mein kampf . Something along the lines of "By defending myself against the Jew, I am carrying out the Will of God". You can think what you want but it does not change the fact, that he was quoted on multiple occasions and even stated in his autobiography that he was doing the work of God. This is not even mentioned the crusades or the mass genocides that occurred in the bible, if you believe the bible is true.

(2) I don't even have to post sources on this. That is just common sense. Literally google it or just develop critical thinking. We are trespassers in a land whom are held hostage by bad faith. The quran explicitly teaches them to defend their land. They think we are terrorist. The only logical assumption you can draw, is that if you pull out of the Middle East, lest acts would occur. The question is not if it would decrease, but by how much. You are completely presenting the wrong argument with saying, it will have no effect.

(3) Religion - "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Islam by definition is a religion, whether you think it contains bad ideology is subjective based on your perspective. There are multiple versus in the Quran that command Muslims not to overstep bounds or commit needless acts of murder. Even verses where it condones people having the right to be an infidel, and that they should not needlessly transgress upon them. Just as their are verses that preach murder and hate for them. Someone who wants to hold Islamic faith can just listen to the verses he chooses and take out the bad parts. Again it is what Christians do, and what a lot of modern Muslims are doing in America.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
Mikal....

1) I proved your argument about Hitler false.. you don't know as much as you do so why not try and listen to me.
2) Prove that terror will decrease if we left the M.E. I proved that Muslims have plenty of other reasons to kill us as it was done in the past.. Prove to me that if we left, Iran would stop pursuing nukes..
3) I proved that Islam is an ideology.. Prove that it isn't.. That among other things, a muslim MUST follow sharia law and Islams prophet commands the death or subjugation of nonbelievers..
4) If my leader, calls for the death of infidels (americans or westerners) isn't that enough of a psychological indicator to disallow my service in American military? Regardless of whether or not you think I will actually act on those commands? Why should the Military assume this additional risk? Its best to avoid it entirely.
5)"Whom else do you have to submit, to make it into paradise?" no one.. Jesus is the savior of ALL men, disbelievers and believers alike.. apples to oranges AGAIN because you DONT KNOW ANYTHING!
6) What people do in the "name of Christ" and what "Christ commands" are 2 different things! I proved this in my debate! More proof that YOU DIDNT READ!
7) "If you are going to ask a moderate Muslim to give up his faith, then give up yours as well." My prophet doesn't call for YOUR DEATH! Apples to oranges!
8) theres is no "moderate" muslim as proven in my debate! A moderate muslim would've been killed by Muhammad!
9)Most leaving Islamic nations for fear of death are apostates or Christians.
10) Most muslims that now live in Europe are calling for sharia law. 10s of thousands have rioted for sharia. (see pic in debate) Muslims in Dearborn, MI are calling for Sharia. Muslim ideology trumps mans ideology

Like thett you have failed to provide any evidence, counter proof that Islam is an ideology, you dodge questions and talk in circles.. "freedom of religion" is not freedom to follow someone that calls for murder. that's a CRIM
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
Mikal is right. Not all Muslims hump camels and blow things up.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I was going to even bother to respond, but the more I read the more your lack of understanding annoys me.

Also with do respect, you have no concept of Islam or even Christianity for that matter

Not all people whom hold Islamic faith are indoctrinated religious fanatics. Only around 7 percent of Muslims are intense religious fanatics or extremest. In specific reference to Jihad. A vast majority may accept the teachings that warrant that extremism, but would never commit the act itself.

Ji-had = inner struggle or holy war.

The core belief calls you to surrender to Allah. Islam bears the root word "al-Silm" which in itself means submission.

Does that even sound vaguely similar. Whom else do you have to submit, to make it into paradise?

There a vast amount of Muslims, whom are moving to america to get away from that type of belief and extremism. Sure if you go to a country where Islamic faith is in full force, you will find shocking results. If I went back to the crusades and tried to take polls about what people would do in the name of Christ, I am sure there would be shocking figures as well.

You are claiming that a religion can not involve and that is preposterous.

I hate religion as a whole, not just Islam. It advocates intellectual laziness and gives people false hopes and promises. It is simply a crutch for people to hold on to, and it dictates how they live their life. Some live in fear of hell, some live by good commands because they fear they have to. Anything that can act as a catalyst for incidents like the crusades should be put on trial.

America however promises freedom of religion. If you are going to ask a moderate Muslim to give up his faith, then give up yours as well. Christianity bears scars just as well as Islam.

With that I am done. Next time you debate something, chose a topic that does not highlight your lack of understanding of the topic at hand. She deserved the win and she will get it, and not just by vote I
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
thett3TheUnapologeticTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know if I can agree with Pro that Con dropped as many points as was claimed, but for me what clenches it is that he never found a suitable answer to Pro's contention that rather than screen on the basis of religion, a better solution is for military candidates to be recruited with selective care based on mental health and psychopathy. There are non-Muslim terrorists and traitors who we do not want in our forces, and there are Muslim Americans who would proudly defend the USA even if that means they are not following the scriptural interperetations as understood by Con. The pictures proposed by Con are inflammatory, not informative. A person could post a picture of the Christian Westboro Baptist picketers with anti-US signs too, and try to extend their stance to encompass all Christians, which would be similarly dishonest to what Con is attempting. Conduct goes to Pro because of Con's uncalled for hostile attitude.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
thett3TheUnapologeticTruthTied
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: RFD in comments