The Instigator
bballcrook21
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
UtherPenguin
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Pan-Islamism Would Be Dreadful In Application

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 79029
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

bballcrook21

Pro

Introduction:
Upon reviewing your profile, I have come to the conclusion that we are opposite in every single aspect except for gender. I have read some of your debates, and have understood your stance on an absurd subject, the idea of Pan-Islamism.

I will state that overall, I find the idea of any Muslim nation, caliphate, or collection of Muslim areas under theocratic rule to be terrifying both realistically and idealistically. I will also go to state that I find any religious motivations for certain laws that prohibit actions to be wrong and goes against the basic ideals and principles of a true and strong Republic or Democracy.

I have challenged you to this debate because I have been bored too long. I have a thirst for winning debates and I need more wins to quench this undying thirst, and for some reason, drinking Gatorade will not help this thirst.

I will law a basic foundation for the vernacular and rules used in this debates henceforth so there shall be no areas of confusion.

Pan-Islamism - a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state " often a Caliphate " or an international organization similar to a European Union with Islamic principles. [1]

In this debate specifically, we will assume that instead of a legislative world body such as the United Nations or the European Union, this Muslim group will be a theocratic conglomerate composed of multiple majority Muslim nations that share borders with each other. In this sense, I will state that this "Pan-Islamic" caliphate will consist of the autonomous nations of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc. (If I have missed any majority Muslim or Muslim based theocratic government nations then feel free to add more).

I reiterate, the rule is that these nations have to be bordering each other, and cannot have holdings in other parts of the world. That means that you cannot incorporate nations such as Indonesia or Bangladesh into this list, as Bangladesh is not neighboring any of the aforesaid nations and neither is Indonesia, but both have a large Muslim population.

As a conclusion, I will list some rules that we uniformly have to adhere to. Failure to adhere to these rules will be detriment to the final score of our debates. For example, if one of us decides to be legitimately insulting, then the voters will ultimately award the point for conduct to the opposing side.

Rules:
A general array of etiquette that can be inferred such as respect for other's opinions and the right to state these opinions freely, without slander for the statement of these ideas.
However, the description of someone's argument to be a complete fallacy is acceptable, as there can be no debating without stating that the opponent's argument is not applicable or is nonsensical in basis.
Do not quote anything from any religious source unless the debate takes a path in that specific direction.

Finally, let me state that you are responsible for the opening argument, in which you are responsible for highlighting your current ideas, (which, inevitably, will be utterly destroyed and capitulated during my argument.)

Remember to use sources and clear facts, as well as a general observation of world events, politics, geographical differences, and so on.

I conclude. I await your approval to my challenge and your opening response.

Sources:
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
bballcrook21

Pro

Let me start my opening argument by expressing my gratitude for my opponent for accepting this debate.

The main aim of this debate will be to deduce whether or not Pan-Islamism is a plausible aim in modern days.

Historical Background:

The model pan-Islamism aims for is the early years of Islam– the reign of Muhammad and the early Caliphate– when the Muslim world was thought to be strong and uncorrupted in one united state.

In the modern era, Pan-Islamism was championed by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani who sought unity among Muslims to resist colonial occupation of Muslim lands. Although sometimes described as "liberal", al-Afghani did not advocate constitutional government but simply envisioned “the overthrow of individual rulers who were lax or subservient to foreigners, and their replacement by strong and patriotic men.” In a review of the theoretical articles of his Paris-based newspaper there was nothing "favoring political democracy or parliamentarianism,” according to his biographer.

While Afghani's interest in Islamic law and theology was scant, later Pan-Islamism in the post-colonial world was strongly associated with Islamism. Leading Islamists such as Sayyid Qutb, Abul Ala Maududi, and Ayatollah Khomeini all stressed their belief that a return to traditional Sharia law would make Islam united and strong again. [1]

Opening Argument:

It is clear and evident that a formation of a theocratic nation dominated by Islamic law will eventually result in a process of dehumanization, denial of basic liberties, and widespread corruption. A primary argument of a Pan-Islamist would be to state that idealistically, corruption will not occur. Idealistically, Communism is about extreme equality, where people cannot transpire between classes, as there are none. Realistically, a Communist nation will occur in deep poverty, corruption, and ultimate autocratic rule of the governmental elite. The same will occur in a Pan-Islamic nation.

This specific Pan-Islamic nation will consist of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Algeria, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia and Niger, as they are dominated by either a majority Muslim population or by a Muslim leadership and Islamic law.

I have explained in my previous statement that these nations are picked due to their close proximity as well as all of them being connected somehow by borders.

I have listed a total of 27 nations, but some are left out as they are minor nations or are not very prevalent. We will use this as a margin of error as well as a realistic margin, granted that not all Muslim nations would want to be unified under one, even more theocratic, all powerful and corrupt banner.

Evidence and Statistics:

783,562 km2 – Turkey

86,600 km2 – Azerbaijan

1,648,195 km2 – Iran

437,072 km2 – Iraq

185,180 km2 – Syria

2,149,690 km2 – Saudi Arabia

528,076 km2 – Yemen

309,501 km2 – Oman

803,940 km2 – Pakistan

2,724,900 km2 – Kazakhstan

865 km2 - Bahrain

17,820 km2 – Kuwait

89,342 km2 – Jordan

83,600 km2 – UAE

1,010,407 km2 – Egypt

11,571 km2 – Qatar

652, 864 km2 – Afghanistan

10,452 km2 – Lebanon

491,210 km2 – Turkey

143,100 km2 – Tajikistan

448, 987 km2 – Uzbekistan

1,886,068 km2 – Sudan

2,381,741 km2 – Algeria

1,240,192 km2 –Mali

1,267,000 km2 – Niger

446,550 km2 – Morocco

163,610 km2 - Tunisia
[2]

This is the land mass of each of the 27 bordering Muslim dominated or theocratic Muslim ruled nations.

All together, they would cover a land mass consist of 20,001,221 km2, covering all of the Middle East as well as all of Northern Africa.

The total population of these 27 nations combined would amass 822,769,538 people.

Argument Section 1: Social Clash

Middle Eastern and North African nations are consistently throughout the world some of the most poverty ridden, corrupt, and underdeveloped regions in the world. Each of these nations have a widespread Muslim population, with most adhering to Sunni Islam, while nation such as Iran and parts of Iraq follow Shia Islam.

Evidently, a religious disparity will occur, with Shia and Sunni Muslims clashing, due to their different religious ideologies.

One can already experience this religious divide as Sunnis flock to different nations and regions within their nations. Some nations have already been deemed threatening to others, such as relations between Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

Each nation also has its own traditions, history, background, and customs. Uniting people under the name of Islam has more idealistic than realistic application, as there are many details that coincide with a united Muslim Caliphate.

Argument Section 2: Corruption

This Muslim Caliphate will cover more land than Russia, as well as a population almost 6 times as large. We can already observe the amount of widespread corruption in China, which will have a larger population but a smaller land mass than this Muslim Caliphate. Evidently, corruption will occur, in regard to religious as well as monetary influence. The most prevalent part is surveillance, which will not be implemented accordingly. It is unrealistic to assume that one federal theocratic body could rule over such a massive nation and population. Due to this irregularity, regional governments will need to be formed, in order to maintain judicial and legislative balance in the nation.

In order to maintain a fully functioning theocratic government, laws have to be created from Islamic law. The main issue here is that Islamic Law is to be interpreted, as not all is clear and evident. Interpretation varies significantly and can result in a changing of vernacular in order to create sufficient reasoning for the passing of a very controversial law or regulation.

I can relate the theocratic government to the Papacy during Medieval Europe, where indulgences were sold in exchange for favors or monetary value. The Papacy and clergy was highly corrupt, and had complete dominion over Europe due to the religious influence, until the Reformation occurred. For the majority of the early stages of the Caliphate’s formation, the Islamic government will have complete and utter dominion over the majority of the nation. Additionally, the leader of this nation will have tremendous power across the world. It is palpable that an Islamic theocrat maintaining remarkable power will not transpire with the rest of the world.

I shall provide additional arguments later on. You may begin your opening statement.



Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]Information about each nation is taken from wikipedia (Mainly the numbers).

UtherPenguin

Con

Apologies but I would like to pass this round. Due to outside factors I wasn't able to fully finish my opening argument. If it is fine with my opponent I'll post my full argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
bballcrook21

Pro

I will abstain this round since you have not posted an argument the round before.
UtherPenguin

Con

To make up for my previous absences, I’ll merge my rebuttals alongside my opening arguments.

Argument /Rebuttal: Historical Caliphates

In order for one to answer whether or not a theocratic government could work in application. It would be best to see previous examples of Islamist governments in application.

This is very important, since one of the primary goals in Pan-Islamism is to bring back a Caliphate or Caliphate like state, much comparable to the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates.

Below shows maps of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates at their heights respectively:

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

http://img10.deviantart.net...

As seen in the maps above, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates both covered mass swaths of territory. The concern that my opponent had made in his first argument:

“Each nation also has its own traditions, history, background, and customs. Uniting people under the name of Islam has more idealistic than realistic application, as there are many details that coincide with a united Muslim Caliphate.

Yet the Umayyad Caliphate covered large diverse territories, under Islamic government and law. This includes but is not limited to Spain, Persia, Egypt and Jerusalem. Each of these countries have had diver sly radically different cultures religions and backgrounds. Persia was Zoroastrian during conquest, Spain was mostly Catholic and Egypt/former Byzantine territories were mostly Eastern Orthodox. Yet the Umayyad Caliphate lasted from 661AD-750. That is practically an entire century, and the main reasons for the Umayyad’s overthrow had little to do with theocracy, since the Abbasids that replaced them were equally theocratic. In fact, The Abbasids continued on to rule for another

The problem with my opponents argument is that he has made the assumption that a trans-national Caliphate has not been done before, and that diverse religious demographics under singular religious rule is not realistic. As seen above, that is not the case.

Sources:

  1. 1. http://www.middleeastpdx.org...
  2. 2. http://img10.deviantart.net...
  3. 3. https://upload.wikimedia.org...

Argument 2: Negative impacts of Nationalism

Since a Pan-Islamist state would be in Muslim territory that means that the decision as to create such as state would be up to Muslims in said state. Statistic by the Pew Research Centre has shown that much of the Muslim world is in favour of Sharia Law

As seen in the image below, the idea of using Sharia law in Muslim majority countries sits fairly well with the majority of the population. As a result, it would be in said population’s best interest in doing so.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Sources:

  1. 1. http://www.pewforum.org...
  2. 2. PEW Research Centre Q7a,

Rebuttal 2: Lack of evidence

By instigating a debate, and asserting a claim. Pro has the Burden of Proof to his argument. In numerous occasions in Pro’s arguments, he had made a variety of claims whilst failing to give proof to said claim. This can be seen in the following quotes.

It is clear and evident that a formation of a theocratic nation dominated by Islamic law will eventually result in a process of dehumanization, denial of basic liberties, and widespread corruption. A primary argument of a Pan-Islamist would be to state that idealistically, corruption will not occur. Idealistically, Communism is about extreme equality, where people cannot transpire between classes, as there are none. Realistically, a Communist nation will occur in deep poverty, corruption, and ultimate autocratic rule of the governmental elite. The same will occur in a Pan-Islamic nation.”

He has first made the assumption that a Communist country would immediately devolve into deep poverty and corruption, He had done so without giving a sufficient example as to whether it was the case. The burden of proof is hence on pro to prove that Communist policies lead to poverty or hunger. Similarly, the BoP is also on him to prove that a Pan-Islamist would succumb to similar problems. However, Pro fails to prove why this would be the case. Even after the argument in his “Evidence and statistic” list, he doesn’t show any proof to his previous assertion, he only gives stats on the geographic size of each country. This does not act as sufficient proof to his previous claims.

Rebuttals 3: Size

(This one is a short rebuttal as it’s in response to a short point in my opponents argument)

It is unrealistic to assume that one federal theocratic body could rule over such a massive nation and population. Due to this irregularity, regional governments will need to be formed, in order to maintain judicial and legislative balance in the nation.

Historically, Empires of much larger sizes have sustained for long periods of time. Here is an example of what the size of a potential Caliphate may resemble:

Say that the countries above the 60% range are the countries within the Caliphate, similar to the size that my opponent proposed in the beginning of the debate. This landmass would cover most of the Middle East and North Africa.

Now compare that land mass to the British and Mongol Empires at their height:

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...;

As one can see, both empires are of larger size than the Caliphate. The Mongol Empire had sustained been sustained been sustained from 1206 until 1296, as well as the British Empire having survived from 1783 until 1997. Empires far larger size then the Caliphate have existed and survived, hence it wouldn’t be unrealistic to think that the Caliphate could survive even with such a large size. As large, trans-national Caliphates have existed before (Such as the Umayyads and the Abbasids).

Sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org...

3.http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...

4. https://upload.wikimedia.org...

5. http://www.britishempire.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 3
bballcrook21

Pro

Rebuttal

Your first assumption is that you can use history to justify modern claims, which is certainly not the case. As technology, social structures, economic theories, and overall human life progresses, so does governemntal structure. A theocracy is clearly not a working and plausible government structure in which human needs are met and liberty is fought for. The civilized world has largely agreed that a nation that represents its people rather than becoming a technocracy or theocracy will ultimately prevail past nations that do the opposite.

Part 1:

It is inarguable that Muslim nations, representing either a Muslim majority population or a Islamic theocratic government rank high on the corruption index and the human rights violation index.

All previously mentioned nations rank high on the corruption, human rights violation, and restricted freedoms list. They all rank low on ease of doing business, fair and legal business practices, etc. (By stating "high" I am referring to being ranked a large number, i.e 150/180, which refers to that specific nation being the 150th out of 180 nations, which is not good, depending on the subject.) (Stating low, in this case, would be the same as stating high previously. For example, France ranks higher on the ease of doing business scale when competing with these aforementioned nations.)

Part 2:

Your main argument revolves around historical evidence to back up your argument in which a Muslim Caliphate of large proportions would be able to exist. What you forget to take into account is advacement. Need I remind you that all these previous Caliphates have been destroyed, taken over, or dissolved. There are no longer any Muslim empires, but there are quite a lot of nations and groups that seek to change that fact.

"Yet the Ummayyad Caliphate lasted form 661 AD to 750 AD" This is historically accurate, but I think the fact that this Caliphate could not even last 100 years speaks volumes for this argument.

Additionally, the Rashidun Caliphate lasted from 632 Ad to 661 AD. 29 years for an empire is not a significant amount. Muslim nations have had rulers for longer, let alone having lasted for such a short period of time.

Part 3:
If you look at historical context, you can see that all Muslim Caliphates have been opposed not only by outside sources, but many of their own people. A strict Muslim rule does not speak volumes to many moderate people. Religion for the most part is a natural suppressor, which is why it is important to use human nature for many motives rather than religion.

Part 4: World Rankings

I have comprised a list of sources that state rankings for many of the major nations (economic, population, military, or land) that will eventually be part of this so called "Muslim Caliphate".

Out of all nations, Afghanistan ranks 2nd in terms of how bad life is there. The only nation that is higher is North Korea, which is to be expected. [1]
Pakistan is ranked 4th, Iraq is ranked 5th, Syria is ranked 6th, Sudan is ranked 7th, etc. Other nations that have a large Muslim population are also ranked, (Somalia is ranked 3rd) but I will not use them to argue as they are not going to be part of this proposed Muslim Caliphate.

Part 5: Muslim Text

In order to have a Muslim Caliphate, the laws need to be influenced from or be directly from Islamic law, which is called "Sharia Law". Under Sharia Law, interest rates are banned. Banning interest rates effectively wipes all baking practices from this Caliphate, and will also ban loans from other nations. Evidently, the Caliphate will need to be either self reliant or have expert economic management, as they will not be able to get loans from other nations or go into debt. If they do get loans with interest, which is something that most loans are attached with, then they will violate their Islamic law, and the Caliphate will officially be disquialified from the list of Muslim theocracies. For the sake of this debate, we will assume that this Caliphate will follow Islamic Law to its fullest.

"I am a Pakistani, and this is the first time I've been here. I came here seven months ago and honestly everyday I just want to kill myself. It's 46 degrees in Lahore the electricity goes out nearly 12 hours a day. The people are unlettered, bigoted and ill-mannered and have the mentality of probably the 18th century. Extremely belligerent. The news is unbearable, people dying everywhere in blasts, killing, beatings, burnings. And don't even get me started on the religious extremism. THIS COUNTRY IS [-expletive-] ON EARTH!" (I refuse to write any swear words on this site, therefore I will cut that part out. In case you are wondering, the word starts with an H and ends with an L.) [1]

Rebuttal, Part 2:

You have failed in rebutting my claim about Nationalism, which we have seen from history to be a very risky practice, one that often leads to war and violation of personal freedom. First, let me state that there is a clear difference between Patriotism and Nationalism. Empires such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had great forms of Nationalism, in which the needs and rights of individual were diminished and downplayed when compared to the needs and rights of the overbearing, all powerful state.

You also seem to confuse Nationalism for Sharia Law, which is different. Both are very unsafe for practice with humans, and are certain not mulutally exlusive.

Rebuttal Part 3:

One factor that goes into a nation is diplomatic relation as well as survivability, which is always attuned to diplomatic relation. A Muslim Caliphate with no banking practices will eventually grow into extreme poverty, which we can already see with these current nations. Not only will poverty exist, but there will be extreme unwillingness for other nations to provide help to this Caliphate. Going by ranking, North Korea desires lots of outside help in terms of food to combat its hunger problems, even though it has a much smaller population than the proposed Caliphate.

We can hopefully only assume that this Caliphate with its theocratic government will not have good relations with other nations that would be rich enough or willing enough to provide food and help to the ones in need.

Rebuttal Part 4:

And to move on to a part that will be inarguable, and that is current issues. A Muslim Caliphate cannot just spring up from the ashes, it has to be built or put together by these people. When the Caliphate is born, it will have to inherit all the problems of these nations, ranging from crime, economic issues, unemployment, population control, and poverty.

You have yet to propose any real evidence as to how this Caliphate will combat these issues.




Conclusion:

Please understand that I am not talking about this Caliphate lasting for a couple of years, which it of course will, as a nation of this size cannot be dissolved so quickly. I am referring to the Caliphate lasting for centuries upon centuries, for hundreds of years. My argument states that this cannot occur, as these problems would overtake it and its thecratic government will not have enough funds or the ability to do anything about it.





Sources:
[1]http://www.thetoptens.com...;
UtherPenguin

Con

I will use this round to finish off my rebuttals alongside my conclusive arguments.

R1:

It is inarguable that Muslim nations, representing either a Muslim majority population or a Islamic theocratic government rank high on the corruption index and the human rights violation index.

All previously mentioned nations rank high on the corruption, human rights violation, and restricted freedoms list. They all rank low on ease of doing business, fair and legal business practices, etc. (By stating "high" I am referring to being ranked a large number, i.e 150/180, which refers to that specific nation being the 150th out of 180 nations, which is not good, depending on the subject.) (Stating low, in this case, would be the same as stating high previously. For example, France ranks higher on the ease of doing business scale when competing with these aforementioned nations.)”

This is mostly irrelevant, since This argument fails to factor in why much of the aforementioned countries are corrupt. Pro (as seen in his previous arguments) implies that the cause of human rights violations or corruption in Muslim countries is contributed to Islamism or theocracy itself. This can be seen in round two of Pro’s opening arguments in which Pro states:

“It is clear and evident that a formation of a theocratic nation dominated by Islamic law will eventually result in a process of dehumanization, denial of basic liberties, and widespread corruption.

Pro implies in this rebuttal and his previous opening argument that the cause of human rights violations or corruption in Muslim countries is directly contributed to Islamism or theocracy itself , however Pro does little to prove this. The problem being that Pro may have found a causation between Islamic countries and corruption but fails to explain how Islamism is the causation of such despite suggesting that. With the logic that Pro has used, I could easily state that the reason for corruption in said countries can be linked to geography brining up a single correlation and immediately concluding that is the cause. Hence the argument used by Pro fits under the “false cause fallacy” in which (and I quote):

“[to presume that] that a real or perceived relation between two things means that one is caused by the other”

Sources:

1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

2. http://rationalwiki.org...

R2: “Your main argument revolves around historical evidence to back up your argument in which a Muslim Caliphate of large proportions would be able to exist. What you forget to take into account is advacement. Need I remind you that all these previous Caliphates have been destroyed, taken over, or dissolved. There are no longer any Muslim empires, but there are quite a lot of nations and groups that seek to change that fact.

Yet realize the fact that most countries from 1300 years ago (when the Umayyads rose) no longer exist today because that is perfectly normal for a country to break apart or reunify. The Byzantine Empire was superpower of the Middle East (before the Umayyad) yet now they no longer exist. The Sassanid Persians used to be the dominant power of the Middle East, yet they no longer exist. Also realize that the Umayyad were immediately replaced by another Caliphate, the Abbasids, whom went on from 750 Ad until the 1500s. And the Abbasids were replaced by the Ottomans. None of the Caliphates permanently collapsed, as the role of Caliphate jumped to a new country afterwards. And this system went on until the end of WW1, to which the cause of said collapse was a series of rebellions, coups and in-fighting brought upon by European colonialism. So whether or not these Caliphates no longer exist is irrelevant, since it is only the nature of countries in general to break apart or unify.

Yet the Ummayyad Caliphate lasted form 661 AD to 750 AD" This is historically accurate, but I think the fact that this Caliphate could not even last 100 years speaks volumes for this argument.

Additionally, the Rashidun Caliphate lasted from 632 Ad to 661 AD. 29 years for an empire is not a significant amount. Muslim nations have had rulers for longer, let alone having lasted for such a short period of time.

The reason for the Rashiduns end did not come as a result of being a Caliphate. If that was the case, then the Ottoman Caliphate would not have been able to survive from 1372 to 1918. The Abbasids would also not have survived from 750 AD until 1258. The Abbasid Caliphate survived for over 5 centuries and the Ottoman Caliphate was one of the longest lasting empires in human history, if the nature of the Caliphate were for it to be unstable and incapable of survival, than both the Abbasids and the Ottomans would have collapsed a very shortly after their establishment.

Sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.britannica.com...

3. http://www.economist.com...

R3:If you look at historical context, you can see that all Muslim Caliphates have been opposed not only by outside sources, but many of their own people. A strict Muslim rule does not speak volumes to many moderate people. Religion for the most part is a natural suppressor, which is why it is important to use human nature for many motives rather than religion.

Pretty much every country over the course of it’s history has been opposed by outside forces and it’s own people. The United States has faced the Cold War, WW1 and WW2 as an example of opposition from outside forces, and has also seen protests, civil wars and secession movements as an example of opposition from its own people. Facing internal and external pressure is in the very nature of a country. Just because they face opposition from external and internal forces, doesn’t mean that makes the existence of the country ethically wrong.

R4:

Please understand that I am not talking about this Caliphate lasting for a couple of years, which it of course will, as a nation of this size cannot be dissolved so quickly. I am referring to the Caliphate lasting for centuries upon centuries, for hundreds of years. My argument states that this cannot occur, as these problems would overtake it and its thecratic government will not have enough funds or the ability to do anything about it.

The problem with that argument is that Caliphate governments that had been “lasting for centuries upon centuries, for hundreds of years.” Had occurred in history, at least twice. As mentioned previously, the Abbasid Caliphate survived for over 5 centuries until Mongol conquests, and the Ottoman Caliphate survived from another 5 centuries until WW1. The problem with Pro’s argument is that it hinges on the assumption that a long term Caliphate cannot exist, despite the fact that such is not the case. The Pro’s argument also hinges on the assumption that Islamism is a “idealistic” philosophy, and that Islamism has not been applied successfully before. Yet the Abbasid Caliphate not only lasted for 5 centuries, but also stood as one of the most prosperous nations of the world at it’s time. With libraries and universities in Baghdad that attracted scholars from as far as Europe. While Spain under Umayyad rule also prospered to a similar degree.

Apologies if I failed to cover Pro’s 5th argument, as I lack the space and time to do so.

Thanks to Con for the debate.

Sources:

1. http://www.britannica.com...

2. http://www.saylor.org...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org...

4. https://www.boundless.com...

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Todd0611 1 year ago
Todd0611
I do not wish to vote, because I am quite new to this site, and haven't read all the rules about voting. I would like to say that this was a very good read, well thought out arguments from you both, who seem to be able to do what most people can not: have a dignified argument and maintain respect for each others ideas. I would just like to applaud you both, compliment you for an intriguing debate, and just say thanks for an educational debate, good luck in the future.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Sure, I'm usually fine with a few spelling mistakes since the sentence is still legible.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
I seem to have missed some spelling errors as I was going over my debate. Let me fix "baking" to "banking" and governemntal to "governmental".
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Alright.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Just post your arguments first, I'll post afterwards (that way we both begin rebutting in the next round)
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Since I am arguing against both your opinion of Pan-Islamism as well as the general idea of it, I shall allow you to get the first argument. I will not post my argument for this round.

If you don't want me to do that, I will just post my opening argument rather than wait for you to write yours.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
I'll accept in an hour. I'm just finishing up another debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
bballcrook21UtherPenguinTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although some other voters believed that con only focused on specific points, these specific points were focused onto in great detail and because of this their arguments were explained in great detail. Con also played a defensive role in this debate which allowed them to successfully refute Pro's claims. Sources were equal. Although technically con forfeited so did pro. If pro had continued the debate then Con would have the disadvantage however both rounds were forfeited for both sides so I have chosen to ignore this. Spelling and grammar was good enough by both sides.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
bballcrook21UtherPenguinTied
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: The problem with Con's arguments is that they're solely focused on longevity and stability. I could accept both of these arguments (though there's reason to believe that a caliphate wouldn't achieve either with certainty), and still vote Pro on the basis of corruption lasting through the formation of the caliphate (making problems like those in Afghanistan writ large), issues with acquiring funds (as Islamic law precludes any ability to take loans), and at least the potential for clash between Sunni and Shia, which seems to be more of a modern issue. Other issues brought by Pro seem relatively minor or uncertain by comparison, but these are sufficient reason for me to believe that a caliphate is much more likely to cause harm to these nations than not. With all of these arguments basically dropped, there's little I can do but vote Pro.
Vote Placed by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
bballcrook21UtherPenguinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Conduct goes to Pro because Con essentially forfeited a round. Arguments just barely go to Pro, because Con spent a lot of time making defensive arguments that focused on things such as the longevity and likelihood of a pan-Islamic state, rather than making too many proactive, aggressive arguments on why a pan-Islamic state would not be "dreadful in application" (although there were some). On a side note, both debaters argued quite well, I think, and I would recommend that they participate in a second round in which there are no forfeitures, so that a winner, in the more pure sense of the word, may be crowned.