The Instigator
jat93
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

The Supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" should be built.

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 13 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,970 times Debate No: 13561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (13)

 

jat93

Pro

My stance is presented in the title of the debate.
I will present my case in several manners:

1) The "Ground Zero Mosque" is, in fact, not actually a Ground Zero Mosque.

2) The builders of the "Mosque" have a constitutional right to do so, and to prevent them from building it would be unconstitutional. They have the law on their side.

3) It is both Un-American and straight out immoral. The moral components:
a) The "rubbing salt on the wound" idea is incorrect and foolish. Furthermore, the opposition/prevention to the building should be seen as rubbing salt on America's wounds.
b) Opposition of the building on the grounds that the builders are Muslim just like the people behind the 9/11 attacks is unfair discrimination.
c) The terrorists behind the original 9/11 attacks will not have "won" if the Mosque is built. On the contrary, they will have won if building is prevented from being built.
RoyLatham

Con

This is a "should" resolution, meaning that among the choices of things that might be done building the Ground Zero Mosque is preferred to other things that might be done. For example, a multi-cultural community center embracing the multiple religions might be built on the site, or the Mosque might be built a couple blocks away. Pro must prove that building the GZM as it is proposed is what should be done.

Pro has not presented a single argument in favor of building the Mosque. I agree that there is a Constitutional right to build the Mosque. They may do so if they wish. The right is irrelevant to the debate. Each of us has the right to tattoo "I love DDO" on our foreheads. That is not an argument that we should do so. Having the right to do something does not mean that it should be done.

President Obama, after some fumbling, correctly framed the issue, "... I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said in response to a reporter's question ... "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about." http://www.foxnews.com...

Let's first consider Pro's specific contentions.

1. Whether the "Ground Zero Mosque" is appropriately named is largely irrelevant. The name clearly identifies a specific project, and the debate is about whether that specific project should be built.

It does matter whether or not it is a Mosque, because if it is not a Mosque then there is no Constitutional issue. Cities ban "big box" stores on slim grounds of politicians happen to like http://www.bizjournals.com..., so if it isn't a mosque then the project is left to whatever zoning rules the City wants. It has a mosque, and it is also includes a cultural center. http://politifact.com...

What exactly constitutes "ground zero" is not defined. The landing gear from the wreckage of one of the hijacked aircraft hit the building and the general proximity to the World Trade Center site suggests the name.

2. I agree that the proponents have a Constitutional right to build the Mosque. That doesn't mean they should do so.

3. Pro argues "It is both Un-American and straight out immoral." Pro is confused. The resolution is that the Mosque should be built. So what is "Un-American and straight out immoral"? Based upon what Pro subsequently argues, it seems that Pro is asserting that legally banning the Mosque would be "Un-American and straight out immoral." Sure, I agree, but that is not the debate resolution. The resolution is that the Mosque should be completed as planned, rather than doing something better. I also agree that (b) opposition on grounds that the proponents are Muslim is incorrect, and (c) that the Mosque should not be prevented. Neither (b) nor (c) affirm why the Mosque should be built which is Pro's obligation in the debate.

N1. Pro asserts (a) that the "'rubbing salt on the wound' idea is incorrect and foolish," but he doesn't say why. If the assertion is true it still does not argue why the Mosque should be built rather than, say, a jointly-managed multicultural center dedicated to peaceful understanding.

The characterization of "rubbing salt into the wounds" does not accurately reflect most of the opposition. The explanation calls for an example. Consider the idea of building an American cultural center. The idea is to build it Hiroshima within sight of the building partially destroyed by the nuclear bomb dropped on the city. Let's put aside the question of whether there is right to build it; if it "should" be built, according to debate parlance, then a legal way should be afforded. The case for the American center is strengthened by the Americans having opposed Japanese militarism, and thus brought democracy to Japan, and by the nuclear bomb probably having saved ten million lives by ending the War quickly. In Pro's phrasing, there is no wound to rub salt into, because in the long view it was a good thing. So, should the proposed center be built? I say clearly not, because there are much more positive things that could be one instead.

The harm is how the Center casts the event. The bomb drop is implicitly suggested to be an America versus Japanese clash of races or culture, rather than a turn of history. Proponents of the American Center could say anything they wanted about how it was really a monument to peace and understanding; it wouldn't change the implications.

N2. What should be done is for proponents of the Mosque to modify the plan so it does not evoke the idea of cultural confrontation, whether that is what is intended or not. They could move the project a couple blocks. What I suggest is that the project be built on the site, but with equal worship space afforded to Muslims. Jews, and Christians and most of the building given over to multi-cultural activities. A critical requirement for credibility is that planning for the site would have to entrusted to an interfaith committee. If it were entirely under the control of the Imam, the inter-faith aspects would be dismissed as window dressing, as the current inter-faith aspects are now dismissed.

Pro can argue that having acute sensitivity about the 9/11 site is irrational, but that does not address the problem. The goal should be to smooth the waters, not to invoke the self-righteousness of political correctness. Whether building the Mosque as conceived should be antagonistic or not does not change the fact that many people find it upsetting, and there is more to be gained by being accommodating than confrontational.

A prime backer of the Mosque agrees:

"A billionaire Saudi prince who has been a prime backer of the Ground Zero mosque imam is urging that the controversial Islamic center be built elsewhere. ... 'Those people behind the mosque have to respect, have to appreciate and have to defer to the people of New York,' Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said in an interview with the Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine. 'The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can't say, 'Let's just go back to where we were pre-9/11.' ... 'Most governments are pragmatic, most people are logical. There are pockets of extremism in Israel, in the U.S. and in the Muslim world. But we have to fight them with reason, with logic and with compassion,' Alwaleed said. 'We can't just say 'go to hell.' We cannot do that.' '" http://abcnews.go.com...

Nervousness about the purposes of the project are justified. The progressive British newspaper "The Guardian" summarized, "... opposition may arguably be derived from a certain latent nuance in Imam Rauf's language that demonstrates an imperviousness to the hurt that New Yorkers still feel. While he professes to be a bridge-builder who is using Park51 to promote inter-community peace and healing, his lack of sensitivity is exhibited for many in a certain evasiveness over Islamic culpability in the 9/11 attacks. In short, he has never conceded that Muslims committed them." http://www.guardian.co.uk...

"Imam Rauf's words ring hollow to many and his efforts have struck a raw nerve nationwide, with 68% of Americans and 71% of New Yorkers polled opposing the project." Clearly, more than a few people find it upsetting. [ibid] It is not going to help Islamic relations to deliberately confront 68% of the American people.

The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built. If a Saudi Prince backer can see that there is better plan, so should the rest of us.
Debate Round No. 1
jat93

Pro

Well, seeing as you took a totally different approach than I anticipated, my arguments will be presented differently than I originally planned.

- First of all, it is important to note that the Ground Zero Mosque will not be built at Ground Zero. Based on some of the media hype surrounding the issue, one could think that the Mosque is being built literally at the ruins of the World Trade Center. It is not - it is two blocks away. [1] This begs the question of just how far away from Ground Zero can be considered "Ground Zero" and what can be considered "disrespectful" to the 9/11 or the victims. There is both a strip club and an adult video store within the very same proximity of Ground Zero. Additionally, there already exists a Muslim center with a Mosque inside of it within close proximity to Ground Zero, but it has never been an issue before. The existence of this Mosque nearby Ground Zero has caused no harm to the community it belongs to.

The proposed building is also not "truly" a Mosque. It is a Muslim community center, similar in that regard to a YMCA or a JCC. It is supposed to be open to the public - technically to everyone. It will house a nice basketball court, a good sized gym, a swimming pool, a culinary school, a 500 seat performing arts center, a center for several groups such as the Cordoba Initiative, a group devoted to harmony between Islam and America and promoting peaceful understanding of the two to better co-exist. In addition, the 15 storied building would house a prayer space for Muslims. [2] So it's established that the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not truly at Ground Zero and not a technical Mosque. The title "two and a half blocks away Islamic community center open to public" would be far more accurate.

Con acknowledges the fact that the builders of the community center have the law on their side. In taking a different approach than I had anticipated (and perhaps bordering on debating over semantics) the bulk of his presentation has been telling me that nothing I have said addresses why this "Ground Zero Mosque" actually should be built. I disagree with this assertion. By creating the debate itself with an opposing stance of Con, the presupposition is that my case can be made on why I believe the Mosque should be built in light of the opinion of Con, that it should not be built. My entire contention that it should be built is based on the fact that the structure in question is, at this point in time, either going to be built or not be built - that is a given - and as such, topics such as the Constitutional rights or why prohibiting the building would be Un-American or immoral fall under the category of why the building should be built. It is fairly obvious that I intended to make my case this way - on the fact that it should be built because the only alternative at this point is actually preventing it, which I contend is wrong. Not, as Con seems to be suggesting, that I believe the current building plans to be the best scenario with no better possibilities than what is planned now. It is important to note that I don't have to think that this building is literally the best idea possible in order to be in favor of it. Anyway, at this stage in the game, proofs for why the Mosque should not not be built should suffice as equal proofs as to why it should.

So, I will quickly address the Constitutional aspect and then move on to why the Mosque actually should be built. The first sixteen words of the first amendment to the Constitution state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [3] The builders clearly have the law on their side. Sarah Palin posted from her Twitter account, "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?" [4] This is absolutely ridiculous. One cannot simultaneously acknowledge a right and suppress it. There is absolutely no way to acknowledge a protected right under the law and then insist against that same right being exercised. Notice how Ms. Palin, an outspoken supporter of the Con side of the debate, makes no distinction between "steps" and blocks." And again, apparently she has no objection to the two "Ground Zero Porn Shops." Now, you claim to recognize the facts of their legal rights, yet at this stage in the development the Mosque will either be built or not be built, so logically, proving an element of why it should not not be built proves an element of why it should be.

More on why it should be built.

- Simply, to oppose it is un-American and immoral. Our message to Muslims is that if they are good, moral American citizens, they will give up their American rights. Many have suggested that if we allow this building, the terrorists will have "won." The opinion of most of the opposition has been that the building should be seen as a slap in the face to America. On the other hand, if we STOP this building the terrorists will have won. The terrorists, who, despite what Palin wants to acknowledge, are only bloodthirsty, evil human beings who happen to be Muslim, and use Islam as a veil for their heinous deeds - those very same terrorists will have accomplished their goal if this Islamic community center is anything but built. If it is not, those terrorists will not only have succeeded in breaching our security and crumbing the World Trade Center to the ground, but they will have had the privilege of watching its ripple effects unfold as an citizens are turned against each other. They will see that as their victory and their success; then, they will have truly shown their power and influence over American society. However, if we do build it, we'll be showing them that we can rise above their petty acts of hatred. And then, the terrorists will have lost and we, the American people, will have triumphed. Additionally, the hateful terrorist Muslims behind the 9/11 attacks people see the peaceful, non-radical Muslims who want to build the community center as repugnant. They would be disgusted by the building - a Muslim community center, co-existing with the people, trying to promote actual peace and harmony between American citizens? That's exactly what they don't want and it is exactly what we need.

In similar thought, we will only be "rubbing salt on our wounds" if, at this point, the Mosque is anything but built. Building it should actually be the ideal way to heal those very wounds. Again, if it is not built (therefore an argument for why it should be) the terrorists will be able to watch as we fight each other from the inside. We will have violated the doctrine that has been the backbone of our country and that we have upheld meticulously for years.

However, if we allow it, we can better integrate Muslims back into society and try to heal the obvious Islamophobia apparent within the American society. You're caught up in the fact that the building would hurt citizens emotionally and would not strike a good chord with citizens. But, accepting the fact that it is two blocks away, a community center, run by peace promoting Muslims, the perfect way for us to "win" and for the terrorists to "lose," and especially when there has been a functioning Mosque near Ground Zero with no issues whatsoever, the logical conclusion is that the building's opposition is purely emotionally based... And we cannot change our laws based on emotion. As Aristotle said, "The law is reason, free from passion." We should not let our passion effect the obviously reasonable choice.

[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
[4] http://www.associatedcontent.com...
RoyLatham

Con

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," said [Senate Majority Leader] Reid's spokesman in a statement. "Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else." http://politics.usnews.com...

With a "should" resolution, if something should be done, then the presumption is that even if a Constitutional amendment is required, then that should be accomplished. Virtually every town in the United States has zoning ordinances that specifically direct where churches can and cannot be built. What the First Amendment guarantees is that it must be allowed to build a religious facility somewhere in a location reasonably accessible to the parishioners. For this debate, I stipulate that if the backers want to build a mosque on the selected site, then the law allows them to do so. New York City, whose laws govern, has affirmed that. The debate is entirely about whether they should build it or not.

I said that the name of the facility and whether it was precisely at ground zero are irrelevant to the debate. Con argued that if people generally recognized that there were non-religious functions and that it was two blocks away from the World Trade Center collapse, then opposition to it would vanish. Pro offered no evidence that opposition was based upon the name, that opponents do not know the proximity, or that opponents do not know the multiple functions. Those points have been included in most reports on the mosque controversy, and those favoring the mosque have publicized them extensively. Yet 68% of the population still wants it moved.

The people understand it quite well. In the United States, church facilities have long been understood as centers of faith, not as secular facilities with an incidental place of worship. There was, for example, the case of a church that wanted to build a lighted baseball field as part of the church facility. The town objected that the zoning was only for a religious facility, and not for a baseball field. The Courts ruled in favor of the church. The understanding is that religious facilities have ancillary facilities that support the religion, so those facilities are properly allowed as part of the church. http://www.churchlawtoday.com...

The law reflects the common sense understanding, that a religious community is more than just the central place of worship. Even if theoretically open to the whole community, the GZM would not be built if it were not expected to serve primarily Muslims. They certainly have the right to build such a facility, but the understanding that it is devoted to Islamic culture is a correct understanding.

Pro claims my argument "verges on semantics." How else could the resolution "The Ground Zero Mosque should be built." possibly be interpreted? President Obama clearly agreed with my interpretation. How were we both using slippery semantics? If Pro actually wanted to debate some other resolution, it's not my responsibility to find out what he really wanted to debate.

Pro says, "My entire contention that it should be built is based on the fact that the structure in question is, at this point in time, either going to be built or not be built - that is a given - and as such, topics such as the Constitutional rights or why prohibiting the building would be Un-American or immoral fall under the category of why the building should be built." I objected to that argument in the First Round. It is absolutely false that to not build the Mosque in deference to cultural sensitivity is the same as not building it because it is prohibited. Pro reasserted his argument that they are the same, but obviously they are quite different.

Pro repeats the argument that building the Mosque should not be opposed on the grounds that it proves the terrorists have won. I never made that argument. He is inventing a straw man.

The argument I made, and elaborated with an example of building an American Cultural Center near ground zero in Hiroshima, is that proximity of the cultural center suggests implicitly that tragic events were a consequence of opposing cultures, and not an errant force within the culture. Pro did not address my argument or my example. Does Pro think that an American Cultural Center should be built in Hiroshima? If not, why not? I say we should not, because it would falsely imply that the central issue of World War II is Japanese culture as a whole, and not the errant rise of Japanese militarism. Similarly, the Ground Zero Mosque draws attention to the Islamic religion as a whole, rather than on the terrorist faction. This is emotional, but it is nonetheless the case. Emotions count when attempting to promote peace.

A parallel real case in 1993 is that of Carmelite nuns having built a convent a the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Jews objected, on the grounds that having the convent was "Christianizing" a place sacred to Jews. Pope John Paul II ultimately ordered the nuns to relocate. http://online.wsj.com... Carmelite nuns do not proselytize, they only pray. Nonetheless, the cultural confrontation was posed. It was resolved by relocation.

Pro argues that peace will be promoted by deliberate confrontation. He gives no evidence in support of that position. The Saudi prince backing the mosque does not believe it. Harry Reid doesn't believe it. American Muslims are not convinced. "In reality, this is possibly the single worst thing anyone can do. Instead, this is the perfect move to ensuring relationships deteriorate. American Muslim Shireen Quidosi writes, "Such a move perpetuates the ongoing tug-of-war between Islam and the West ..."
http://qudosi.com... Other American Muslims opposed to the Mosque are referenced on that site.

Pro claims that Muslim terrorists would not want the Mosque built. But radical Muslims have in fact not denounced the Mosque. They want it built so they can falsely claim victory over whom they characterize as anti-Muslim. Those in the Muslim world who support the Mosque are from countries who are opposed to any cultural confrontations in their lands. I challenge Pro to find an overseas Muslim commentator in the Arab world who says the equivalent of "Building religious structures and cultural centers to confront narrow-minded opponents is the best way to advance peace among cultures. A multi-cultural center including Christian and Jewish places of worship should be built in Mecca to promote understanding by this means." As far as I can determine, it has not happened. They know that confrontation does not lead to peace. They are seeking some sort of victory, not peace. (Incidentally, I think a Center as described should not be built in Mecca, for the reasons I cite.)

Is it necessary to actually tattoo "I love DDO" on your forehead in order to prove you have the right to do so? That is the essence of Pro's rights argument. No, you don't.

Pro has the burden of proof in this debate. He provides evidence to support trivial claims like where the Mosque is located and what it comprises. He offers no evidence that these facts are not well understood. His main conjecture is that building the Mosque at that location will promote cultural understanding in spite of 68% opposition. He offers no evidence that will happen. The informed opinions of Harry Reid and of a Saudi prince backing the project are that it will not, and American Muslims are at the very least divided over the issue. Pro hasn't addressed my hypothetical of building an American cultural Center at ground zero in Hiroshima, and the actual case of a convent being built at Auschwitz shows that confrontation did not lead to understanding.

The Mosque should either be relocated or managed by multiple faiths.
Debate Round No. 2
jat93

Pro

"With a "should" resolution, if something should be done, then the presumption is that even if a Constitutional amendment is required, then that should be accomplished."

With a "should" resolution, and especially with this one, the presumption is that that something SHOULD be done given the facts/background of the "something" in question – especially this one, which I went on to clarify in the first round, even before you accepted the debate. The resolution says it should be built. Why should it be built? Because the alternative is that it will not be built which I contend is wrong. This intent of the resolution is obvious given the content that I put forth in the first round. My intent was that it the mosque should absolutely not not be built (meaning that it should) because on certain facts and a certain position. This is obvious if you read the first round, which I used as an introduction and clarification of the resolution, but somehow you took my position to be "building a Mosque at Ground Zero is literally the best case scenario; it is morally perfect in every way possible and is superior to any alternative situation that might ever be proposed." I can't stress enough that I am and have been arguing something entirely different to that, and that by doing so I am not conflicting my own resolution.

"A parallel real case in 1993 is that of Carmelite nuns having built a convent a the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Jews objected, on the grounds that having the convent was "Christianizing" a place sacred to Jews. Pope John Paul II ultimately ordered the nuns to relocate. http://online.wsj.com...... Carmelite nuns do not proselytize, they only pray. Nonetheless, the cultural confrontation was posed. It was resolved by relocation."

The case is different because the nuns were not living in a time and place where they were quickly becoming "at odds" with society and desperately needing reconciliation with it. Plus, the Holocaust and even Auschwitz is on a much greater scale than what we were talking about now if only in terms of simple numbers.

But you're still missing my point.

Everything I'm saying in favor of the Mosque is founded upon the fact that a black/white, yes/no decision is going to be reached. I can't reiterate this enough because that is the basis of the debate and the stance I took in it. It is also why I mentioned the constitutional issue and had I intended to speak of strictly the "moral" approach I would have avoided mentioning it entirely. If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand my position.

When I started the debate, and when I end it, the decision to build the Mosque will either be a conclusive "yes" or "no."

In light of that, I've made the case that in light of "no" we should say "yes."

Because we must first all understand the difference between a mosque and a community center open to the public.
Because we must understand that two to three blocks away from a site is not at the site itself
Because we must recognize the importance of the constitutional right, which the support for the building is founded on.
Because we cannot simultaneously acknowledge a right and try to suppress it.
Because we must realize that the plans for the community center predate the 9/11 teror attacks.
Because the Muslims behind the building are not the ones who flew planes into our buildings, and we have to reinforce the distinction between the two - peaceful Muslims and terrorists.
Because in rejecting it, the message we would send to all American Muslims is that if they are true, good citizens, they will give up their American rights.
Because the terrorists (who would certainly pretend to "celebrate" an Islamic victory even if the Mosque was built because that is who they are, while in reality, they could never stand to endorse anything by peace promoting relatively normal Muslims who don't have a problem with their women not covering their heads) will then be able to see the real effect of their acts of terror unfold if we stop the building and further promote the not-so-latent Islamophobia in our society.
Because we can't rub anymore salt on our wounds.
Because we're forgiving.
Because America supports freedom of religion, one of the founding principles of our country.
Because we don't let the actions of a few speak for everybody else in a particular group.
Because a real Mosque has already existed in the same proximity without causing any problems.

Because, given these facts, we can see that the response of even calling the project a "Ground Zero Mosque" is a purely emotional one, not rooted in ANY rationality whatsoever. And accepting the fact that there is no rational, logical reason for there not to be a mosque built in that area, we cannot change the laws of our country based on an unintelligent, irrational, and purely emotional response.
RoyLatham

Con

Thanks to Pro for a lively debate on a controversial topic.

Pro argues that not forbidding the Mosque from being built is the same as advocating it should be built. Pro reflects the arguments of many of the supporters of the Mosque, that the reason for building it is that there is a right to do so. The argument is wrong. I agree that the Mosque should not be prohibited, but that asserting the right under law does not mean the decision is wise. The distinction between having a right and choosing to exercise it is clear to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid. President Obama upheld the distinction. Senator Reid upheld the distinction and went further to advocate the Mosque be moved.

Why do 68% of Americans object to the building as planned on that site? Building it poses the 9/11 tragedy as being a cultural conflict rather than a terrorist act, and that is inappropriate. I challenged Pro to analyze my hypothetical of building an American cultural center at ground zero in Hiroshima. Should that be done? Pro did not respond. I think he knows perfectly well that it is bad idea and should not be done. The reason is that whether there is an intent to be confrontational or not, it would be confrontational. How about building a Christian cultural center in Mecca? Pro wouldn't say. I believe it is clear that the path to peaceful relations does not lie in unnecessary confrontation. Pro's silence, I claim, shows he understands that.

Is a church that has a cultural facility attached properly viewed as a church or as a cultural facility? In American law, the Courts rule it is a church and as such entitled to freedom of religion Constitutional guarantees. The Courts understand that a church comprises the facilities for a religious community, not just a sanctuary for worship. Americans understand this intuitively. Nearly all churches welcome outsiders into their community, but the facility is there to support the religious community. In the case of the Mosque, if its purpose were nonsectarian, it would have been proposed as having interfaith management. That would have ended opposition and brought acclaim.

Pro claims that Americans do not know where the Mosque is or that it has multiple functions. He presents no data to support his conjecture. News stories give accurate information and Mosque proponents stress the location and functions. People know the situation.

Pro claims that building the Mosque as proposed would "reinforce the distinction between the two - peaceful Muslims and terrorists." For the 32% of the American people who want the Mosque built it probably would, but for the 68% who do not it would make the situation worse. I explained why. Pro did not refute my argument, he only reasserted his premise. Pro provided no polling data, opinions of community leaders, or statements of American Muslims that confrontation would be beneficial. The data I presented shows the Mosque would make matters worse.

I challenged Pro to produce evidence of anyone in the Arab Muslim world who recommends that the path of cultural confrontation be broadly applied as a way of improving relations between Islam and the West. Surely, anyone who believes in the principle would want a Christian cultural center in Mecca or some other sacred place in Saudi Arabia. Pro again ignored my argument. Only a minority of Americans and few others in the world believe in "peace through cultural confrontation."

In this debate, Pro did not progress much beyond his original list of unsupported assertions. He provided no sources or informed opinion to support his case. We should reject the resolution for the same reason that the Saudi Prince backing the Mosque now believes it should be moved rather than built as planned.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Roy won this one on the "should" argument; he had no reason to go further as Pro never could address it properly. Pro instigated the debate and chose the words, Roy responded. Easy win for Con.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I vote con because Pro had no answer as to why it would be desirable to build the mosque. I do agree that there is a difference between "should build" and "shouldn't prohibit build". Pro gives a list of "because's", but all of these were once again reasons to not not build the mosque rather that why we should build it.

Example: I have the right to pull the plug on a relative if they are on life support. Just because I have the right, does that mean I *should* pull it? Maybe, but probably not.
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
Great arguments on both sides with two very different but effective debate styles. Roy obviously wins on sources but I thought it a little disappointing that he didn't assume a more substantial burden in his negation.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
This looked like a solid debate. It's just too bad there was so much arguing over what the resolution meant.

I voted RoyLatham because his interpretation of the wording of the resolution seems more intuitive. It's been a common question whether or not the mosque "should" be built, even after establishing that it "can" be built by law. I see nothing in jat's Round 1 that indicates a "can" instead of the typed "should." Given this logical interpretation, jat had nothing on Roy's parallel examples, support from various sources of people, and demonstration of problems.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
That's the only legal issue I see here is property rights. Note I say legal.

As for morals, I've heard their is millions of dollars going into this mosque. Couldn't the builders give some of the money their poor Muslim brothers and sisters starving around the world, and put only half as much money into it?
Posted by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
I would have liked to see a lot more clash on both sides. Great debate, great debaters.
Posted by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
You have the right, but is it right?
Sarah Palin.
Posted by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
oh damnit. i misspelled "affect" in my very last sentence. i haaate when i do that. eh, i guess it was inevitable considering i posted it with 3 minutes to go.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
The controversy is about "disrespecting" families who suffered from 9-11, not whether or not it "should" be built just because we can. No need to discuss, bluesteel. Being confrontational for no reason will get you nowhere.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
I don't see Roy's interpretation as a "skew" - it's the only logical interpretation of the resolution.

The rez "A Ground Zero mosque COULD be built" wouldn't be debatable since there's no ground for con to argue.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LilWayneisGod 6 years ago
LilWayneisGod
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mb852 6 years ago
mb852
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 ReptiDeath 6 years ago
ReptiDeath
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
jat93RoyLathamTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
jat93RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05