The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
2-D
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Thanks to the Jews, and Jesus too.

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 1 vote the winner is...
2-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,027 times Debate No: 76115
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

We recognize the tyranny of Islam. Period.
2-D

Con

Go for it Pro. Why should we thank Jews and Jesus for Identifying Islam as tyrannical?
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

You are of course defending Islam as a non tyrannical set of true believers? The tyranny is obvious in my mind, Islam's that is.
Right?
2-D

Con

“You are of course defending Islam as a non tyrannical set of true believers?”

No, there are a lot of problems with the wording of the resolution but even with a very generous interpretation I do not have a positive burden of proof. Since you have made a positive claim I only have to negate your arguments and you have not made any arguments so far.

Issues with the Resolution

The resolution should normally be stated in the debate title and clarified in round one. Alternately you can clearly state something along the lines of, “my resolution is” and then state your resolution so it is clear to Con what exactly you are claiming. The title here is, “Thanks to the Jews, and Jesus too.” This has nothing to do with tyranny or Islam and is not really a resolution. If, being generous, I take all of round one and the title as you resolution I am left with a vague resolution that gives credit to the Jews and Jesus for identifying Islam as tyrannical.

In other words, we would not know that Islam is tyrannical if it were not for the Jews and Jesus. This is clearly not true and there are many features of tyranny that are easily recognizable. Google defines tyranny as, “cruel and oppressive government or rule or, “cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary use of power or control [1].” It is a simple thing to recognize cruelty or arbitrary power so we do not need to thank Jews or Jesus for any knowledge of tyrannical governments.


All Islamic Governments are not Tyrannical

First, Islam is a religion and not a form of government so Islam itself cannot be tyrannical. The Quran does not build a system of government. Giving Pro even more leeway on his resolution one could ask, does Islam cause tyranny? There are many examples of Islamic countries that are not tyrannical so Islam itself does not cause tyranny. There are obviously other factors.

Cruelty or arbitrary governments are easy to spot and you do not need a Christian worldview or help from Jesus to identify them. According to the freedom in the world and democracy indexes roughly half of Islamic countries are rated as partly free or free [2]. More than 40% of countries identified as Islamic have secular state governments.

Pro’s Position in Round two Seems to Confuse Correlation with Causation

By his logic we might say that Christianity creates feudalism (arguable very tyrannical) if we were in the Middle Ages [3]. We would have to change our mind and say that Christianity causes liberal democracies in the 20th century. Another explanation is that primitive governments are tyrannical and as we learn more governments are less prone/able to abuse power. This process is slower in many areas for various reasons.

-

Pro’s resolution is not clear and is most certainly false as it is written. He has not made any arguments to support any version of the resolution. Pro’s position in round 2 assumes that Islam is the cause of abusive governments without building any connection between the two.

[1] https://www.google.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.thefinertimes.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

You have not retorted, only dictated rules to me that you believe I should obey. Whatever the voters decide for this debate will be a lie if they side with the dictator, you.
2-D

Con

"You have not retorted, only dictated rules to me that you believe I should obey."

I responded to your resolution and explained why it was not very clear or accurate. Without an explanation to my objections they have not been refuted and stand without objection. Arguments extended

"Whatever the voters decide for this debate will be a lie if they side with the dictator, you."

I don't know why I have been described as a dictator and this is basically an ad hominem attack. Pro is basically saying that my arguments are false because I have a personality flaw which is not a valid argument.

Thanks to Pro for setting up the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Thinking capitalists, and thinking tyrants.......not fixing anything.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Your a dick, and you dunked the dunce here. You asked. Paid to think, what a scam. The planet is not getting better no matter how many thinkers the politicians make us pay for. That's the truth.
Posted by 2-D 1 year ago
2-D
Yeah, I think a lot so my arguments are often valid and sound which gets votes. No dictatorship, more of a meritocracy which isn't a bad thing. How is dinky dunkin' a reference to me? ha
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
You dicktatership wins again, so be it then, eh. you think. thinking and dinky dunkin' I am talking to you.
Posted by 2-D 1 year ago
2-D
Well have a good trip. Be sure to take down any tyrants or dictators you run into.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
I'll be gone for a week, starting soon, so make of this as you can, for your own benefit. I'll be back, if the lord wills it, or not if they don't. So be it.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Do you believe in a third side on the coin? or are you a flipper? Cheers, to spock!
Posted by 2-D 1 year ago
2-D
I agree that there are often multiple positions on an issue that may be correct or have there own merits. I am always open to new ideas when there is solid evidence to support them so I am not in an ivory tower in the sense that I am not open minded. Again, I haven't presented any rules. I'm just giving you my opinion on what makes a solid debate. Over 100 debates without exploring new methods or perspectives would be easy in an ivory tower.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
2-D equals heads or tails. I believe in a 3rd dimension. You?
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
In an Ivory Tower dictators mind, you, that would be correct. Your rules do not apply to me, god wannabe. Cheers!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Inquistive 1 year ago
Inquistive
Max.Wallace2-DTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I really don't have that strong of an opinion on the topic but Con's grammar, sources, thoroughness and conduct makes it an easy win for them.