The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

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 2 votes the winner is...
RonPaulConservative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 99254
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

RonPaulConservative

Pro

Resolution:
The United States should form an allience with all the free nations of the world, then, during a period of years, create massive economic growth through low taxes and low regulations enbable to create more GDP growth. We should then boost all of our military budgets to 20% of our GDP, and then, finally, declare war against Islam, and utterly destroy the Arab World until there is not one Islamic state left.


CosmoJarvis

Con

I really hope this is a joke debate.
I'll debate this anyway no less, if you're willing to present an argument.

I'll argue that a war against Islam will only hurt society within America and will create more unwanted enemies.
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Pro

No- this is serious.

First of all, we must understand that Islam is not a religion, it is cult, which was created for poliical purposes. It has its own set of laws, its own leadership, and decrees itself to have authority. This is a political group, and must be acknowladges as such.

Second of all, Islam, as a political group, is ultimately no different than the Nazi Regime, and like the Nzi Regime, we must acknowledge it as nothing more than a regime which is blatantly hostile against America, and Western Democracy. We must treat it just like we did the Axis powers durring WW2, and declare an all-out war on it.

Third of all, Islam is already an enemy of the United States- they have alreasdy declared war. We will not be able to survive a strategy of appeasement- it is eat or be eaten.
CosmoJarvis

Con

I greatly reject your views on Islam being a cult created for political purposes.

Islam: The religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

Islam is a religious faith that is practiced by around 1.6 billion people in the world. Muslims themselves are typically peaceful people. Muslims that I know don't act worse than any other people. They simply have a different faith and choose to live by their religious principles rather than others. Personally, I feel that Islam and other religions like Christianity aren't that different, especially since both religious faiths may have some principles which we may regard today as being immoral and disgraceful, so the argument that "Islam is a religion founded on violence" can only be said if you can accept that the Bible is as well since it has passages such as one where, for making fun of a man who was bald, God sent two bears to murder 42 children.


Your irrational views on how "Islam will destroy America," and other such boondoggle is nothing but hilarious. You're taking the radical Islamic terrorist group way out of proportion. Yes, ISIS is our enemy, and yes, they are strong, but they are concentrated in the Middle East. Their intent is to extend their power throughout the Middle East, and centralize their power. America and other nations have made great progress in suppressing them. They pose no threat to overtaking our government or ruining our democracy.

A genocide of all Muslims would only spark outrage, giving ISIS a better reason to hate us, and likely using a Muslim genocide as propaganda for their cause, and create internal revolts in America.

In the back of my mind, I'm still convinced that this is a troll debate.
Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Islam was created for political purposes- you see,Muammad wanted political power, and he sought to get it through military strength, so he built an army and conquered territories. To be victorious in his wars and conquests, he instituted a number of techniques from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, among which was the invention of Islam. Sun Tzu said that you have to convince soldiers that the will not face any punishment in the afterlife by fighting for you. So, Muhammad invented a fonney religion of his own enable to get the undying loyalty of his soldiers, and so that they wouldn't fear punishment by God for the attrocities Muhmmad wanted them to commit. All Islam is is an ideology that was invented for the purpose of conquest against Non-Muslim nations suxh as our own. It's no different than the Nazi Regime and should be treated as such.

My opponent attempted to say that Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism because there are violent passages in the Old Testament, but this argument simply does not apply for 3 big reasons:
First of all, none of the violence in the Old Testament actually happened, it was all made up.
Second of all, Christianity and Judaism were not invented for the purpose of conquest, they just have violent verses in their books.
Third of all, Christianity had a reformation in the late Middle Ages, and Judaism is having a reformation done right now, but there has been no such Reformtion attempted in Islam.

No one said we should genocide Muslims, I said we should handle Islam just as we handled the Nazi regime- go in there with a massive military budget and a few million soldiers- then bomb them, shoot them, nuke them, invade them and topple the regime. After this, we divide the nation up into a few parts for different nations to control, and end the regime propaganda being enforced on their youth. This will take about 40-50 years, just as it did with Nazi Germany. Now look at them- there are no Nazis in Germany anymore!
CosmoJarvis

Con

Similarly, Catholicism started out as a cult where a man self-proclaimed himself as the son of God. Though he died on a cross, only accumulating a mere 12 followers, his will lived on.

Catholicism grew on a larger scale. Politics and religion became intertwined in Europe, with the Pope having almost as much authority as vassals, lords and even Kings, during the Middle Ages. Even to this day, Catholicism is related to politics, and has influence in matters such as marriage, posing as heavy opposition against homosexual marriage.

In the 11th century, the European Catholics initiated a series of holy wars, which we know today as the "Crusades." Kings offered their armies to Pope Urban and his cause to recapture Jerusalem. Citizens, consisting of Jewish and Muslim peoples, were massacred at the hands of the Crusaders. However, these violent wars seemed to have come to a peaceful end during the "King's Crusade," where Frederich the Lionhearted and Saladin reached an agreement where, though Saladin and his empire would still control Jerusalem, the Europeans were welcome to go to Jerusalem without any sort of conflict. However, Pope Urban was dissatisfied with this outcome, initiated the Fourth Crusade, and so on. Nothing was accomplished by these wars. They were nothing more than a series of fruitless wars with casualties on both sides, all a result of religious intolerance and a hunger for power.

My opponent claims that Islam is not similar to Christianity because it was only their Holy Scriptures, who he claims were entirely fake, were the only things that had any violence in them, not the religion itself. However, the Crusades were a prime example of how malicious Christianity was, and how much authority it has.

My opponent continues saying "No, we're not going to massacre Muslims. No, no. We're just going to treat them in the way that Nazis did to their enemies. It's totally okay!" And then he goes on to say, quite simply, "then we're going to shoot them, bomb them and nuke them. There's a difference between that and massacring, somehow."

I am 100% convinced this is a joke debate.
Debate Round No. 3
RonPaulConservative

Pro

My opponent is confusing Christianity and Catholicism- Christianity would count as a pagan cult, but it isn't a regime, it wasn't invented for military and political purposes, the Catholic Church was, by Constantine, but they had a reformation in the late Middle Ages.

The Crusades are not comparable to Muhammad's bloody military campaign ecause the Crusades were actually justified- you see if my opponent would have stayed awake in history class he would know that the Muslims provolked the European Nations to wage war against them by attacking Constantanople, conquering Spain, and stealing the Holy Land.

Furthermore, I sai we should treat the Muslims like we did the Nazis becuse that's what they are, not like the Nazis treated their enemies. And yes- we should shoot, bomb, and nuke the Muslims, because that's what you do when you're at war.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE DEBATE this is serious.
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent suggests that we, the United States of America, treat Muslims as a Nazi would treat a Jewish person. I think I do not need to explain myself on how irrational and utterly stupid this idea is.

Yes, I still firmly believe this is a joke debate. I'm waiting to see a camera man pop out of the doorway and say "YOU'VE BEEN PRANK'D!"
Debate Round No. 4
RonPaulConservative

Pro

My opponent seems to have dropped my entire case, and has instead attacked something that I never said, which is called a strawmsn fallacy: I never said we should treat Muslims like the Nazis treated the Jews, I said we should treat Islam just like we treated the Nazi regime, because it really is no different. Winston Churchill knows what I'm talking about:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Let's recap so my opponent knows my stance:
First of all, Islam is not a religion but a militant ideology, much like the Nazi ideology, it bears some similarities with a religious cult, but isn't a religion.
Second of all, the Arab Bloc, ran by the Islamic Regime, is an enemy of the United States, and it has already declared war on us.
Third of all, we are at war, and thus we need to build a massive military and destroy our enemies. After this, we should handle the situation just like e handled Nazi Germany- break it up between us and Russia, end the indoctrination of youth in the Regime ideology, and stomp out any good memory of the former regime.

This is not a Joke debate, I'm serious. Islam is a real threat and it needs to be destroyed.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Yo, I'm not going to go refute this boondoggle.

*Drops mic*
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 12 months ago
RonPaulConservative
@Cosmojarvis
I never said that.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 12 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Thanks for the comments on my conduct, Evan. I do admit that I was acting too immature. Though, in my defense, I believed that Ron's suggestions to "treat Muslims like the Nazis did to Jews" was a joke.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 12 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Is this really even a debate?
Posted by King-La-Ding 12 months ago
King-La-Ding
But I still don't get how Muslims in general are a direct threat to the U.S, as well as a direct threat that would be subjugated if we were to launch a full scale invasion of the Middle East. Which would cost trillions. By 2050 if you account for the interest the U.S will have spent over 7 trillion dollars on the Iraq invasion, imagine a full scale invasion of every country in the Middle East. Even if it's a coalition the U.S would no doubt be the country paying the most in, it would cost years worth of our discretionary budget. And what are we getting out of it, again the nations in the Middle East do not pose any direct threat to the people of the U.S. And clearly we are not just attacking specific ISIS and Al Qaeda militants we are doing regime change in every Arab country, so for example in Syria with a Civil war going on, our goal is to topple Assad, but also puppet the government by taking care of the rebels (whom all the moderates have fled) and only ISIS and Al Nushra remain, that is the definition of a quagmire.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 12 months ago
RonPaulConservative
@EggsAndSam
Racially superior- what ARE you talking about? These guys are a danger to our civilization, and thus need to be taken down- they're no different than the Nazis, ad it's time to topple the Islamic Regime like we should have done a long time ago.
Posted by EggsAndSam 12 months ago
EggsAndSam
"Because Islam has the ultimate goal of World Domination and wants to destroy us." Ya, we'll dominate their whole entire territory and destroy their culture, ya, that sure would show them how civilized we are! And murdering them all would be immoral, no, instead we'll nuke everyone there and take away all their rights. That way we can treat them as sub-human because that's totally not immoral or racist, we are just racially superior. *NOTE* I am being sarcastic
Posted by CosmoJarvis 12 months ago
CosmoJarvis
"We're not going to massacre Muslims! That'd be immoral and wrong. No, no. We're just going to shoot them, bomb them and nuke them! There's totally a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by RonPaulConservative 12 months ago
RonPaulConservative
@dr.jimmythefish
Because Islam has the ultimate goal of World Domination and wants to destroy us. Theism is a danger to freedom in the long term, but Islam is an immediate danger.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 12 months ago
RonPaulConservative
@evanjfarrar
First of all, we won just about every war we ever won- the American revolution, the war of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, and the Korean War by shooting and bombing. It is the strategy of appeasement that is a failure. This is a good strategy for preventing an enemy, but once you already have one, let alone one who does not want anything but death and destruction and to see the West burn it is the stupidest plan you can come up with.

Second of all, Modern Rocket technology was invented by the Nazis- it doesn't mean that they were a regime we should respect.

Third of all, what does ethnocentrism have to do with this? Islam is ethnocentric.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 12 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Yeah, because massacring over one billion people is so rational :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 12 months ago
Theguy1789
RonPaulConservativeCosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts off the debate by making a case as to why Islam should not be regarded as a religion, as he shows that it was created for political purposes, and goes on to show how it is a political agenda, and that we should treat it just like we treated the Nazi regime. Con then attempts a straw-man fallacy by saying that Pro wants to quote "genocide all Muslims," something that Pro never actually said. Con calls him out on this, and proceeds to show how Islam was created for military and political purposes. Con then tries to refute this by saying that Christianity was created for the same purpose, which I am still perplexed as to how this refutes Pro's case. Pro then cites how this is Catholicism, not Christianity. Pro then says that Con said the US should treat Muslims the Nazis treated the Jews, something that never happened. Pro refutes this, and Con forfeits.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 12 months ago
evanjfarrar
RonPaulConservativeCosmoJarvisTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro, as Con resorts to insults in the final two rounds instead of resuming his focus and furthering his responses to Pro's arguments. This displays a lack of integrity and respect to the views of Pro, however abhorrent they may appear to Con or any other person. Argument Points go to Con. Pro proposes a plan, but with zero claims to inherency nor harms that are actually substantiated. Con points out that this plan is unwarranted and runs a disad on backlash which stands unrefuted at the end of the debate. At the end of the debate, Pro resorts to explicating historical trends, attempting to prove a viable difference between Islam and other popular religions. This is initially refuted by Con, but is later dropped by him. However, even if this point is dropped, the historical argument failed to substantiate Pro's argument anyway. I would warn Con that even if the claim was somewhat controversial and could be perceived as bigoted, maintaining respect is paramount.