The Instigator
LakevilleNorthJT
Pro (for)
Losing
55 Points
The Contender
mors202
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

Resolved: The term "terrorist" is discriminatory towards muslim United States citizen's.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,788 times Debate No: 4264
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (35)

 

LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

The first round is just for clarification puroposes, no actual arguing should be done.

Good Luck To My Opponent.
mors202

Con

Well then, for clarification purposes, according to dictionary.com, a terrorist is one a "a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence", and history has many examples of terrorists, some who used religion, and some who didn't. Dictionary.com also says that discrimination means "to make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice".

A Muslim is just simply a follower of Islam, and while there are some Muslim terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslim. I do not know when the word terrorist became linked, immediately and without qualification, with the word Muslim. While it is true that Muslim terrorist are the most active terrorist at work in the world today, to say that the word terrorist is discriminatory towards Muslims, which would make the word on par with the N-word, because of recent events is a ridiculous statement.
Debate Round No. 1
LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

My opponent is misunderstanding my arguments and by his response I think that that is quite clear. My position is simply that muslims are commonly perceived as common terrorists. I am saying that society in general perceives muslims as terrorists and terrorists as muslim. MY OPPONENT CONCEDES TO THIS BY SAYING, "While it is true that Muslim terrorist are the most active terrorist at work in the world today." THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISCRIMINATION I AM SPEAKING OF. A terrorist is someone who commits a crime of any sort. Thus, even a bank robber could be classified as true. Thus by saying that muslims make up the majority of the terrorist population, as my opponent does, is absolutely discriminatory, racist, and unjust.

The following article explains how muslims are unjustly classified as terrorists:

Imagine a member of the KKK going on the Bill O'Reilly show and declaring all African-Americans are shiftless crackheads. Imagine the outrage and calls for Fox News to be investigated for promoting racism and hatred. Now imagine an Israeli diplomat going on Bill O'Reilly's show and declaring all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, this happened, and nobody is calling the diplomat, Dan Gillerman, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, a racist or are there demands Fox News be investigated for promoting racism and hatred.

In Bushzarro world, it is fine and dandy to characterize all Muslims as terrorists.

"While it is politically incorrect to say that all Muslims are terrorists, unfortunately, it's true that all terrorists are Muslim," Gillerman said on O'Reilly's show yesterday, July 16.

I picked up this quote from a blog. It was not mentioned in the corporate media. A Google News search returned no results. Either the people who post at the Truth Will Set You Free blog made the quote up or Israelis spewing racist hatred is so common and acceptable nobody bothered to mention it.

Of course, when Iran's Ahmadinejad says anything about Israel, it is front page news. In fact, so eager is the corporate media to demonize Ahmadinejad, it reprints distortions of his comments (Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map," as widely reported), which are then used to further rationalize "all Muslims are terrorists" comments.

As FAIR noted late last month, the starting point of all discussion in the corporate media about events in the Middle East begins with the assumption Arabs and Muslims are terrorists.

This article clearly backs up my argument. The rest of it can be found at http://card.wordpress.com...

Now I will move to address the arguments made by my opponent.

" A Muslim is just simply a follower of Islam, and while there are some Muslim terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslim."

My opponent agrees with me. This is exactly what I am advocating. Not all muslims are terrorists. I am trying to argue the common perception that they are. My opponent concedes to my advocacy and thus I have won this round.

" I do not know when the word terrorist became linked, immediately and without qualification, with the word Muslim."

The article I provided explains the common perception our society has that these two words are linked. My opponents agrees with me once again. These words should not be linked.

"While it is true that Muslim terrorist are the most active terrorist at work in the world today, to say that the word terrorist is discriminatory towards Muslims, which would make the word on par with the N-word, because of recent events is a ridiculous statement."

My opponent is being very discriminatory. "Muslims are the most active terrosrits." The previous statement is just blatantly false and is what I am trying to show is wrong. My actually using the term "terrorist" to discriminate, my opponent is showing that I have clearly won this round. I would also like to say that the comparison to the "N-Word" is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't really make sense.

Throughout this round I have won on many levels. My opponent has also agreed with my position on many levels and has shown that the term "terrorist" is discriminatory towards muslims. Thus the decision for this round is clear. PRO.
mors202

Con

Well, to clear up the confusion about the argument, I made the mistake of assuming that the debate was about the definition of "terrorist" in light of current events. I did not understand that we were to debate a subjective belief my opponent holds that people in our society, as exemplified by me, according to my opponent's last argument, believe that all terrorists are Muslim.

My opponent cites, as evidence that our culture believes that all terrorists are Muslim a quote from an Israeli ambassador. Now, I am not familiar with the quote, but the source my opponent cites is ridiculous anti-Israeli and is inundated with factual fallacies and idiocies that would take multiple pages to chronicle. All that I will say is that the article would make Ahmandinejad and the Iranian intelligence corp very proud.

My opponent says that Muslims are not the most active terrorist in the world right now. Well, let us go back in history:

All terror attacks against US troops and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were done by Al-Qaeda or Muslim insurgent groups, such as the Mahdi army or the Taliban.

The car bombs in London were done by Al-Qaeda, or Muslims who wanted to follow the example of the members of Al-Qaeda.

The attack on the apartments in Riyadh were done by Al-Qaeda.

The bombings in Indonesia were done by Al-Qaeda.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were done by Al-Qaeda.

The attacks on the US embassies in Africa were done by Al-Qaeda.

The attack on the USS Cole was done by Al-Qaeda.

The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut were done by Hezbollah.

Then, of course, there were the numerous terrorist attacks on the state of Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO.

In recent memory, there are only a very few attacks conducted by non-Muslim groups. These attacks include the attacks in Oklahoma City, the attacks by ELF, and the activity of certain separatist groups such as the IRA and Tamil Tigers (who are actually believed to be working with Al-Qaeda). However, many of these attacks have tapered off in recent years, or are not as spectacular or as damaging as the attacks by the Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.

This is, of course, not a complete list by any account. However, it does seem to me that many groups, who allow membership to Muslims exclusively, seem to have conducted the majority of attacks in the last few years. It brings to mind the old adage: "Not all Germans are Nazis, but all Nazis are German." Just change that to "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but only Muslims are in Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the PLO, etc."

Of course my argument is moot if a terrorist is just a person who commits any crime. This would by a huge stumbling block, if the definition of a terrorist did not make my opponent assertion completely wrong. A terrorist is one who uses violence to achieve political ends. I doubt that speeding on the highway qualifies as a violent operation to make the government do something for the speeder or his affiliated group.

So, I have established that the recent activities by the Muslim terrorist groups is, indeed, terrorist. I have also established that a mugger, speeder, or bank robber are not terrorists. It has also been established that many of the current terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Muslim groups. Now, my opponent believes that people in our society equate terrorist with Muslim, as exemplified by my statement that "Muslim terrorists are the most active terrorist at work in the world today."

To do this, I will go back to the quote: "Not all Germans are Nazis, but all Nazis are German." Since Nazism is another form of fascism, and the more infamous form, I would deign it appropriate to replace Nazis with fascist. According to my opponent's argument, the word "fascist" would thus be discriminatory against all Germans because fascism is associated with Germans. This is quite the ridiculous leap of logic. By stating fact, I de facto discriminate, albeit unintentionally. The same analogy applies to communism and Russians. The only remedy to this discrimination is to stop reporting facts. This seems to be a rather ridiculous belief, as well as being elitist. Does my opponent assume that most Americans cannot discriminate between Muslim terrorist and the law-abiding Muslims any more than he can discriminate against a Nazis fascist and a law-abiding German or a communist and a law-abiding Russian? My opponent may think that most Americans are so narrow-minded, but I don't.

In short, my opponent's position is laughably illogical. It shows more contortions and obfuscations of fact than an Ahmandinejad speech. It is built on hostile articles that are seriously flawed at best--complete lies at worst. It is an elitist view of the people of this country, and as such, is also arrogant. It shows a complete disregard for common definitions and the truth. In short, my opponent is completely wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

What this round comes down to is the definition of terrorist. If I can prove that any criminals are terrorists, I WIN THE ROUND. This is because my opponent is contributing to the perception that muslims are terrorists by arguing it to be true.

To see why a bank robber for example is a terrorist, look to the definiton my opponent gives. a terrorist is one a "a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence",. My opponent says that a bank robber isnt a terrorist because they don't want to harm the government. This may be true but robbers may want to harm people and will do so by threatening them as my opponents definition says. For example, "give me the money or I will shoot you." Thus I have shown that all criminals can be called terrorist not jusst muslims trying to hurt the government. By my opponents own definition, I have won the round.
mors202

Con

So my opponent now gets to define what each round is going to be about? Well, I didn't read that in the rules. Since my opponent did not respond to any of my points in my last argument, I am going to assume he either agrees with me, or cannot refute them.

So, we return to my opponent's very tortured logic in saying that all criminals are terrorist. So, according to my opponent, every single person who breaks the law is a terrorist. So, every young teen who speeds on the highway, every jaywalker, every streaker, every kid who plays music too loud, and everyone who double parks makes up a vicious group seeking to use their insidious crimes to gain some political end. Does anyone else really think that this is a valid claim? Don't terrorist have some greater political goal than just going to a location expediently, as speeder seeks to do? I guess we should just take every person who has committed a crime, all the way down to a simple traffic violation and put them on the no-fly list or ship them to Gitmo. How is this logical? Is my opponent willing to say that he is a terrorist if he has or does break the law? This is, beyond all else, a ridiculous statement. Is a terrorist a criminal? Yes. But are all criminals terrorist? Definitely NOT!

I'm pretty sure that I can now safely say that not all criminals are terrorists. Well then, my opponent might ask, what is a terrorist? Well, a terrorist is one who uses VIOLENCE to achieve a POLITICAL end. They can do this by threatening governments or people. On what grounds do I say this? Well, just by knowing the goal and the method of every single terrorist group! They all, from the IRA to Al-Qaeda, have two things in common: they seek a political end, and they all use violence. So, while a terrorist is a criminal, not all criminals are terrorists. That phrase sounds familiar...

It is clear. At the risk of sounding redundant, I have validated the claim that, while all terrorists are criminals, not all criminals are terrorists. Perhaps my opponent claimed this round prematurely.
Debate Round No. 3
LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

"a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence"

Extenf the argument showing that by my opponents own definition A BANK ROBBER IS A TERRORIST.

On that argument alone I win.
mors202

Con

Throughout this debate, I have raised numerous pieces of evidence to show why the word "terrorist" is not discriminatory to Muslims. I have raised the point that, while terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., are Muslims, not all Muslims are terrorists. This is akin to saying that all Nazis are Germans, but not all Germans are Nazis. It is reasonable to say that the average person can make the distinction. After all, there has been mainstream effort to go out of the way to show the distinction, after all, President Bush visited a mosque after 9/11. My opponent, however, has not shown any evidence to show how the word terrorist, as well as the general public mindset regarding Muslims, has been discriminatory. In short, my opponent has not even bothered to contend this issue with me--which shows he either agrees with me, or cannot respond.

In addition, my opponent does not believe that Muslim terrorists, affiliated with Al-Qaede or some other terrorist group, are the most active terrorists in the world. To show how ridiculous this statement is, I composed a list of all the major terrorists attacks by Muslims. I then compared these to attacks by non-Muslim groups. The obvious conclusions was that the attacks by non-Muslim terrorists were A)fewer and B)less damaging/noticeable. Once again, my opponent refused to respond to this point. Thus, once again, he either agrees with me, or cannot refute what I say.

Finally, my opponent tried to make the specious argument that any criminal is a terrorists, so Muslims are not the most active terrorists in the world. This argument is the product of tortured logic produced by an ideologue who seeks to twist all the events and facts of the world to fit their own worldview. I have pointed out that, while all terrorists are criminals, not all criminals are terrorists. This is common sense, a person speeding on the highway is not a terrorists, neither is a jaywalker or a streaker. My opponent, instead of responding to these logical points, responds with the mantra of a definition I put foward, namely, "a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence" from dictionary.com. My opponent narrowly defines this to mean anybody who uses violence to gain. However, he ignores the political side of the definition, as well as another point I raised: all terrorists groups have a political goal that is achieved through violence. In the definition, the use of the word "government" distinctly implies a political goal. Compare this to the definition of a robber, an example used by my opponent, from the same source: to take property from (a person) illegally by using or threatening to use violence or force; commit robbery upon. Note that while both a terrorists and a robber use violence, a robber is seeking personal gain, while a terrorist seeks a political end. Indeed, simply looking at the goals of any terrorist movement will show that there is a political goal at the end. Thus, my opponent is completely wrong to compare all criminals and terrorists. I will reiterate: a terrorist is a criminal, but all criminals are not terrorists. A speeder is a criminal, but he is definitely not a terrorist. The person who, through the use or threat of violence, seeks to gain a political goal is a terrorists--like the members of Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or Hamas.

Throughout this argument, my opponent has tortured logic and facts to make them say what he wanted them to say. While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, there is not getting around the fact that there are some who are. It is stupid to not call these terrorists what they are. My opponent advocates exactly that. It is much more in keeping with common sense to say, as I've said all along during this argument, "all terrorists in Al-Quaeda, Hezbollah, etc., are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists."
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
PROs argument was extremely weak...
I voted CON.
Posted by Life_is_Abstract 8 years ago
Life_is_Abstract
Con-"While it is true that Muslim terrorist are the most active terrorist at work in the world today." THIS IS

Pro-ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISCRIMINATION I AM SPEAKING OF.

A majority of terrorist are in face muslim, con is not saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS.

If you have any form of a brain do not vote pro.
Posted by mors202 8 years ago
mors202
Though, that is not good sentence structure. My bad.
Posted by mors202 8 years ago
mors202
Did you read my last sentence? I said: "to say that the word terrorist is discriminatory towards Muslims, which would make the word on par with the N-word, because of recent events is a ridiculous statement."
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
so... you agree with PRO?

25 characters
35 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by emman101 8 years ago
emman101
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 
Vote Placed by lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ally93 8 years ago
ally93
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 
Vote Placed by eminent_fate 8 years ago
eminent_fate
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 
Vote Placed by necromancer 8 years ago
necromancer
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 
Vote Placed by nationalsqualifier 8 years ago
nationalsqualifier
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
LakevilleNorthJTmors202Tied
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