The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NoCoolNameNate
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Only a few Muslims are terrorists.

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...
NoCoolNameNate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 282 times Debate No: 94705
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Stupidape

Pro

This should be blatantly obvious that this is true. Nevertheless some people claim the opposite, that all Muslims are terrorists.

"In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist." [0]

Beware toddlers in lieu of terrorists.

0. http://www.thedailybeast.com...
NoCoolNameNate

Con

Sure the percentage is low, but that doesn't mean that it's only a few. In fact, 106,000 Muslims are estimated to be terrorists or associate with those organizations. https://www.quora.com...

If I said I had a few apples, would you assume I have say 4 or 5, or over 100,000? The fact that it's not a large percent is irrelevant, it's not a "small number" as few is defined as.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

We aren't letting in every Muslim into our country. From your source. ".006625% of the Muslim population are "extremist"."

Thanks for debating.
NoCoolNameNate

Con

First line was irrelevant in that round but again when there's billions of Muslims even a tiny percentage still adds up to a large number. Not most, but also not few. Few is defined by a small number not a small percentage, and even a small percentage of a large number can still be rather big. Simple math.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Yes, but terrorism makes up only a small % of crimes.
NoCoolNameNate

Con

Irrelevant. The only question is whether a few Muslims are terrorist or not, which you seemed to basically just concede to...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
I never understood my opponent's point of view. I admit I was bested. I didn't define few. I was thinking % when I made the debate, not absolute numbers.
Posted by This_Should_Be_Fun 9 months ago
This_Should_Be_Fun
While I agree with you, I do not think that anyone will be able to debate you on the terms of the title of this challenge. Statistically, yes, only a few Muslims are terrorists, but you might want to instead argue whether or not these Muslims pose a threat to us. Personally, I do not think they do, but I think someone might be more able to debate you if it were clarified. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Crimson-Serenade 9 months ago
Crimson-Serenade
The problem with terrorism is not about the amount of people killed, it is about the terror and pressure instilled.
It is correct in saying that those involved in terrorism are a tiny minority of Muslims, however people often claim this is due to fundamental theological flaws in Islam. In my opinion, it seems that the issues are more a part of a geo-political and sociological basis. There is an issue of radicalisation within the Muslim community and we haveacknowledge this. This issue and threat will continue until we work with the Muslim community to identify and remove the terrorist circles within it, whilst also preventing the entry of or distinguishing between radical and non-radical migrants from regions with a high threat of terrorism.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by warren42 9 months ago
warren42
StupidapeNoCoolNameNateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I assume that Pro didn't mean "a few" literally, but Con defined it as such, and Pro never countered this. Therefore, since Con proved that though only a small percentage of Muslims are terrorists, it is definitely more than a few. It also seems that Con MIGHT have meant for the resolution to apply strictly to those living in the US, but that was not made clear in the debate (and with such a literal definition being unrefuted, Con still probably would've bested Pro)
Vote Placed by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
StupidapeNoCoolNameNateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Pro was going to win this... I even thought he wan't gonna get a challenger for this debate. But Con did a really fine job in proving his argument. I think it was implied by the Pro that only a small percentage are radical. Con does an excellent job in using Stupidape's lack of accuracy to turn this arguement in his favor. Nate is completely right... few means more than 1 to very low... 106,000 is not a low number. But Stupidape failed to agree with that. He went on with his percentages, but did not admit that his opening statement that "only a few Muslims are terrorists." He might be on to something with percents, but as the Con pointed out, percents are irrelevant in this argument. Pro's Round 3 argument is correct but completely random... it shows that his argument is flawed, and he just tried to pivot to something safe. Conduct and Grammar are equal, as well as sources. Ultimately, I think pro just stated his topic wrongly, and he should've admitted it, not carry o