The Instigator
CarlaJMena
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Should Muslims be discriminated in America?

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 2 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 23692
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

CarlaJMena

Con

Okay, let's get one thing straight: not all terrorists are Muslim. Yes, I said it and it's completely true. Why people continue to generalize all terrorists as being Muslim is beyond me- perhaps it has to do with their lack of knowledge on the topic and laziness to find out the legitimacy of the claim. It is also possible that since people are so quick to believe what they are told, they are able to easily adopt someone else's views as their own. I wouldn't doubt it- I mean; we all know hardly anyone can think for themselves these days anyway.
A frequent saying goes: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." This was recently said by Reverend Flip Benham on Aug. 11 during Anderson Cooper's 360 show on CNN. Benham argued, "Anderson, I understand exactly what you're saying. You need to ask yourself the question why are all terrorists Muslim? Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim, and that's just pretty-" Benham is quickly interrupted by Cooper who says, "Well, that's just not completely true because, in fact, the guy who blew up the Oklahoma City-" Only to be interrupted again by the all-too-confident Benham who claims that, "Islam is a lie from the pit of hell." Talk about being ignorant and close-minded. I don't think muslims should be disrespected despite 9/11 . Only 6% of muslims are terrorists. What about the other 94% they're not. So why should they be discriminated?
ConservativePolitico

Pro

According to your numbers there are 96,000,000 Muslim terrorists in the world.

You said that 6% of Muslims are terrorists, there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. [1]

96,000,000 is a large number and can't be ignored. Since there are so many terrorists we can't just disregard the fact that they are all Muslim. Now, remember, this is all coming from your data and your numbers. That is a lot of potentially dangerous people that have already attempted to attack or attacked the United States multiple times. While I don't think we need to be treating them hatefully, there is a rightful suspicion of the Muslim faith in America because of this massive number and because of the sensitive subject of 9/11.

Under the Constitution Muslims can't be discriminated against and I think the discrimination you're seeing isn't truly there. However, average Americans treating Muslims with suspicion is there and rightfully so.

Can you tell me why we should ignore the fact that 96,000,000 terrorists you cited are all Muslim? Can you tell me how we can ignore 9/11 and the fact that it was a deliberate Muslim attack on the United States?

The numbers lend themselves to suspicion.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
CarlaJMena

Con

CarlaJMena forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Extend arguments.

I rest my case.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
if con would have kept going pro argument falls apart. How many white terroists exist? How many Latina terroists exist? just because of one bad apple doesnt mean the whole tree is infested with terroistic apples. And under the constituion muslims should not be discrimanated, well the gov still does it. The NYPD was investigating muslims in NYC and NJ, unlawfully, recently. On CNN when the Norweigian guy shot all those people a comment was made by a CNN reporter asking if the guy was muslim. A certain percentage is terroists who are muslim. Well the percentage of U.S. criminals, black, white, latino, Asian, etc outweights the muslim percentage of criminals. Socially stiched racism in U.S. society. That was weak argument by pro and con should have won it if he would have kept going.
Posted by CarlaJMena 4 years ago
CarlaJMena
well actually yes, i did extend the time period to 30 minutes. But that was because as soon as conservative posted an arguement, i had to log off. I apologize for my schedules. And @conservativepolitico I would rather keep it to discriminate because the non-terrorists muslims are also getting discriminated for no reason. Even though they may not realize they have nothing to do with plottings, bombings, etc. So yes, they should check with who they are discriminating first.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Actually. If we changed it from "discriminate" to "treated with suspicion" , nothing legal, something more personal or like police profiling. Muslims Should be Profiled. Something like that I could do.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
That might be arranged. It might be hard for me however because I don't truly believe the position I took. I just saw a good numbers argument and pounced on it curious to see a rebuttal but got none.
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
I noticed, but that's definitely enough to write a case for the Con position. I have little interest in many debates these days, but I'd be up for this one with 30-60 min per round sometime with you CP.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
There was a 30 minute debate period.

Lol
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
Con, I have no idea why you couldn't go on in this debate. Your position is true and very easy to defend. Well, whatever floats your boat.
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
LOL @ Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
CarlaJMenaConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument was weak. But conduct goes to pro.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
CarlaJMenaConservativePoliticoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for Con's forfeit and for a more convincing argument about the sheer amount of Islamic terrorists in the world