The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JustVotingTiedDebates
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Wahabi is the most evil faith in existence today.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 358 times Debate No: 93647
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I've been making some arguments trying to figure out how good/evil Islam is. It appears a large faction of the most evil deeds committed by Muslims, come from the Wahabi faith. Just as Catholics and Quakers are both Christians, yet they are not the same.

From slavery, to multiple husband, to extreme racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, and misogynism. If Satan exists, Saudi Arabia would be his stronghold.

Thanks in advance for arguing this debate.

1. https://www.youtube.com...
JustVotingTiedDebates

Con

Hi.

This is my second debate about Islam against Stupid ape.

In the first one stupid ape lost a heavy loss, and I hope it happens again. In that one, stupid ape made a vague excuse that there were language barriers. I hope that excuse doesn't come again.
http://www.debate.org...

No, Wahhabism (not Wahabi) is not the most evil faith in existence today.
Wahabism is not a faith. It is a religious movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Islam does NOT have 'slavery'.
Islam does NOT have 'multiple husband'. Polygamy is multiple wives not multiple husbands.
Islam does NOT have 'religious intolerance'.
Islam does NOT support 'misogynism'.
Islam does NOT have 'extreme racism'. It does NOT support racism.
Islamic tradition known as Hadith states that in his final sermon the Prophet Muhammad, Allah"s Blessings and Peace be upon him, said:
"There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white " except by piety."

A YouTube video is not an argument nor a proof.

I REQUEST ANYBODY SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH TO JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT'S ORIGINAL BELIEF.

I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION.

Thnx,
Adil Muhammad,
QATAR.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Outline.
I. Intro
II. Rebuttal of opponent's 1st claim
III. Rebuttal of opponent's 2nd claim
IV. Rebuttal of several bare assertions by my opponent
V. Would you believe the Hadith?
VI. Stupidape's arguments
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Sources

I. Intro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I'm a little surprised my opponent accepted. I would have thought there was a greater divide between the denominations within Islam. I thought I could use this to my advantage, yet my opponent shows how unified the Islam religion is. That an attack on one branch of Islam is an attack on all.

II. Rebuttal of opponent's 1st claim

Opponent's claim 1:

"This is my second debate about Islam against Stupid ape.

In the first one stupid ape lost a heavy loss, and I hope it happens again. In that one, stupid ape made a vague excuse that there were language barriers. I hope that excuse doesn't come again.
http://www.debate.org......" justvotingtiedebates


My counter claim: This is a red herring on my opponent's part.

Warrant: "The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe." [2]

Impact: Previous debates are irrelevant to this debate and should not influence the resolution or voters decision in any way.


III. Rebuttal of opponent's 2nd claim

Opponent's claim 2:

"No, Wahhabism (not Wahabi) is not the most evil faith in existence today.
Wahabism is not a faith. It is a religious movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org......" justvotingtiedebates

My counter claim 2:

My opponent is just playing semantics. As illustrated below the English language allows for use of the word "faith" in this way.

Warrant "I grew up Baptist and fondly remember as a child scurrying to the back of the sanctuary for left over crackers and grape juice after we had communion. It was a special occasion so it was not something we did very often. But us kids loved it. I had many Catholic friends. We never talked about religion. We were usually too busy playing baseball or swimming. As I grew older and started asking various questions, adults in my life told many things about the Catholic Faith. " [3]

Impact: My argument stands, as I have proven the language allows for the word faith to be used in this manner. I suggest that my opponent should suffer a conduct point for this.

My counter claim 3:

The first part of the claim is based upon the second part, and the second is based upon semantics.

Warrant: See counter claim 2.

Impact: All that remains is my opponent's word that Wahhabism is not the most evil faith in existence today. Therefore, my original claim remains pristine thus far and continues to impact the resolution.

IV. Rebuttal of several bare assertions made by my opponent.

"Islam does NOT have 'slavery'.
Islam does NOT have 'multiple husband'. Polygamy is multiple wives not multiple husbands.
Islam does NOT have 'religious intolerance'.
Islam does NOT support 'misogynism'.
" Justvotingtiedebates

Counter claim 4: All four of these are bare assertions with no back up. Not only that but they are an appeal to authority fallacy as my opponent shows he most likely is Muslim.


Warrant 4: "Thnx,
Adil Muhammad,
QATAR." justvotingtiedebates

"Description A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.
Example Simon says that Jack eats ice cream" [4]

"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true."[5]

Impact: My opponent's litany of stand alone arguments have no sway on the resolution.


V. Would you believe the Hadith?

"Islam does NOT have 'extreme racism'. It does NOT support racism.
Islamic tradition known as Hadith states that in his final sermon the Prophet Muhammad, Allah"s Blessings and Peace be upon him, said:
"There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white " except by piety."" justvotingtiedebates

My opponent's only real argument backed up by the warrant of Hadith. Yet, my opponent fails to cite a source nor does he provide an impact back to the resolution. If my opponent does not provide a source, he has gained an unfair advantage, because then I cannot see the source in context.

Counter claim 5: According to Hadith the prophet flew to Heaven on a winged Horse.

Warrant 5: "In the year 621, at the age of 51 years old, He flew on the magical Winged-Horse of Fire which he called Burak, which literally means White Horse but seen as "Thunder-Lightning". The full version of this most memorable moment has been preserved in "The Bokhari" (Vol.15, p.3615) one of the Holy Islamic Scriptures. " [5]

Impact: The Hadiths cannot be seriously considered a credible source. This is extremely improbable since the only known mammal that can fly is a bat, horses are mammals, gravity, no evidence of Heaven existing, and air becoming thinner in higher atmosphere. Therefore, until my opponent makes a solid case for Muhammad flying to Heaven on a winged horse, the Hadiths cannot be considered reliable. Thus crippling my opponent's claim.

Opponent's claim "A YouTube video is not an argument nor a proof." Justvotingtiedebates

Another bare assertion [4]. My opponent does not explain why a youtube video is not proof. I contend that a youtube is solid proof. Since its harder to forge false videos than type false words.

VI. Stupidape's arguments

Now onto my arguments with what little characters I have remaining.

Claim 0: It is extremely unlikely God exists

Warrant: Mainstream science, the multiverse theory through evolutionary psychology.

Impact: Since God is extremely unlikely to exist, then all three prophets in Islamic religion are almost certainly false prophets. Which obliterates the credibility of any of Islams religious texts. Think fruit of the poisonous tree. If the prophets are false, then the holy books and words from the prophet are also false. [6]

All that's left are the actions of the people, since now the texts cannot be trusted.

Claim 1: Saudi Arabia performs vile deeds

Warrant: Main stream media. "The death penalty is routinely allowed for criminals convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, drug trafficking or drug use, and apostasy or the renunciation of the Islamic faith, according to human rights group Amnesty International. "[7]

"In Saudi Arabia, sodomy is punishable by death. "[8][9]

Impact: Saudi Arabia qualifies as evil. Saudi Arabia is Wahabi. The law and Wahabism is one in Saudi Arabia.

VII. Conclusion

My opponent has a red herring followed by playing semantics, next a string of bare assertions and appeal to authority fallacies. His only real argument is backed by Hadith. The only sources are a red herring of a previous debate and wikipedia. God is extremely unlikely to exist, making Islam prophets false destroying my opponent's argument while bolstering mine. Thanks.

VIII. Sources
2. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
3. http://ourcatholicfaith.org...
4. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
5. http://www.allaboutturkey.com...
6. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
7. http://abcnews.go.com...
8. http://www.theatlantic.com...
9. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
JustVotingTiedDebates

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. I also thank my opponent for telling us in the introduction that ' an attack on one branch of Islam is an attack on all.'
An-Nu’man ibn Basheer reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The parable of the believers in their affection, mercy, and compassion for each other is that of a body. When any limb aches, the whole body reacts with sleeplessness and fever."


My argument gave no evidence in the first round, except a YouTube video, which is NOT considered an argument, with the BOP on him.

Without forgetting that, I am going to defend my 'statements' in the first round which were rebutted by my opponent in the second round.

My strategy in defence will be: ("Rebuttal" -Defence)

Defence:


1. "My counter claim: This is a red herring on my opponent's part. Warrant: "The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe." [2] Impact: Previous debates are irrelevant to this debate and should not influence the resolution or voters decision in any way. " PRO.
- In the definition of a red herring, it says: 'It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.' A FALSE CONCLUSION. Firstly, That I had another debate with you or that you lost in that one IS NOT A FLASE CONCLUSION. Secondly, you yourself say that it is a debate tactic! Why shouldn't I use it? Thirdly, yes! previous debate are irrevelant to this debate, and shoud not influence the resolution or voters decision in any way. I never said it should. Mind it, not only voters visit this site. Many reasearchers do, too. If somebody comes searching for racism in Islam, he/she can refer to that debate for more information. I never said that: voters, plz check out the previous debate too!

2. "My opponent is just playing semantics. As illustrated below the English language allows for use of the word "faith" in this way. Warrant "I grew up Baptist and fondly remember as a child scurrying to the back of the sanctuary for left over crackers and grape juice after we had communion. It was a special occasion so it was not something we did very often. But us kids loved it. I had many Catholic friends. We never talked about religion. We were usually too busy playing baseball or swimming. As I grew older and started asking various questions, adults in my life told many things about the Catholic Faith. Impact: My argument stands, as I have proven the language allows for the word faith to be used in this manner. I suggest that my opponent should suffer a conduct point for this. "PRO.
- The greatest ignorance is to criticize something you know nothing about. If you call Catholism as a religion, and a faith, then Islam is a religion, and it has 4 faiths. Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki. Wahhabism IS NOT A RELIGION, NOR A FAITH. IT IS A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT INSIDE ISLAM. NOT SEMANTICS. Worthy voters, my opponent doesn't know anything about Islam, it's four faiths, or about Wahhabism, and yet he says that Wahhabism is a faith!

3."My counter claim 3:
The first part of the claim is based upon the second part, and the second is based upon semantics.
Warrant: See counter claim 2. "PRO.
- I have already showed that I didn't play semantics.

4. "Rebuttal of several bare assertions made by my opponent.
"Islam does NOT have 'slavery'.....
Counter claim 4: All four of these are bare assertions with no back up. Not only that but they are an appeal to authority fallacy as my opponent shows he most likely is Muslim. " PRO.
- If these are really bare assertions, then dear opponent, you have worse bare assertions. In round one, my opponent says :"From slavery, to multiple husband, to extreme racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, and misogynism. If Satan exists, Saudi Arabia would be his stronghold." These are bare assertions with no back up, too. And no, I don't show that I am most likely a Muslim. I show that I AM A MUSLIM. Plese don't play dumb. I already told you in the last debate that I AM A MUSLIM.

5. "Warrant 4: "Thnx, Adil Muhammad, QATAR."
- I don't know what my opponent has to rebut in my name or place.

6. "My opponent's only real argument backed up by the warrant of Hadith. Yet, my opponent fails to cite a source nor does he provide an impact back to the resolution. If my opponent does not provide a source, he has gained an unfair advantage, because then I cannot see the source in context. "PRO.
- Two things to say. Firstly, It was an opening argument in first round, so if I gave NO arguments at all in the first round, it would be fine. Secondly, What difference does it make for you if I said "narrated by Bukhari or Muslim"? You will accuse me of lying in both ways, and say it is not a source. Anyway, I writing this for any researchers: That Hadith is narrated in Mosnad Ahmad, #22978.

7. "Counter claim 5: According to Hadith the prophet flew to Heaven on a winged Horse.
Warrant 5: "In the year 621, at the age of 51 years old, He flew on the magical Winged-Horse of Fire which he called Burak, which literally means White Horse but seen as "Thunder-Lightning". The full version of this most memorable moment has been preserved in "The Bokhari" (Vol.15, p.3615) one of the Holy Islamic Scriptures. " [5]
Impact: The Hadiths cannot be seriously considered a credible source. This is extremely improbable since the only known mammal that can fly is a bat, horses are mammals, gravity, no evidence of Heaven existing, and air becoming thinner in higher atmosphere. Therefore, until my opponent makes a solid case for Muhammad flying to Heaven on a winged horse, the Hadiths cannot be considered reliable. Thus crippling my opponent's claim. " PRO.
- Voters, A RED HERRING! This debate is about Wahabism, and my opponent is talking about the Prophet pbuh going to the heaven? Worthy opponent, we can have another debate on that topic if you like. I already had a debate about that: http://www.debate.org...

8. " I contend that a YouTube is solid proof. Since its harder to forge false videos than type false words."
- Then why are you debating and giving arguments? Just search on google: 'Why Wahabism is the most evil faith', and send me all the links!!

9. "Claim 0: It is extremely unlikely God exists. Warrant: Mainstream science, the multiverse theory through evolutionary psychology. Impact: Since God is extremely unlikely to exist, then all three prophets in Islamic religion are almost certainly false prophets. Which obliterates the credibility of any of Islams religious texts. ." PRO.
- AGAIN A RED HERRING! WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT! WE AREN'T TALKING EITHER ABOUT WHETHER WAHHABISM IS TRUE OR FALSE. NOR ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ISLAMIC TEXTS. We are talking about the 'evilness' of the Wahhabi faith. Islam doesn't have three prophets. I repeat: The greatest ignorance is to criticize something you know nothing about.

10. "Saudi Arabia performs vile deeds" PRO.
- In this debate and in the previous debate, I said many times: " JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT'S ORIGINAL BELIEF."

I don't know the reason of my opponent setting the maximum number of characters at 8,000. I have many things left to say. left.

My opponent's argument is FULL of red herrings, and things my opponent knows nothing about.

I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION.

36 Characters Remaining with the sources

Sources:
SP3;ahP3;iM2;hP3; al-BukhaM2;riM2; 5665, SP3;ahP3;iM2;hP3; Muslim 2586
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://english.stackexchange.com...
https://www.quora.com....
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Outline
I. Intro
II. Semantics
III. Credibility of Islamic religious texts key to my argument thus not a red herring
IV. Judge a religion by it's dwellers' actions, not by the religion's original beliefs.
V. Youtube videos act as warrants or proof, not arguments.
VI. Conclusion
VII. Sources

I. Intro

I'm not going to quote every phrase of my opponent and me before it. That would take way too many characters. Instead, I will focus on the main parts of my argument and reinforce them.

II. Semantics

Again, with the semantics. Even if you agree with my opponent, I don't think I should lose the debate based solely upon this. I did make the debate in anger at the injustices in Saudi Arabia. When your angry you don't always choose your words perfectly.

III. Credibility of Islamic religious texts key to my argument thus not a red herring

The credibility of the Islamic texts are key to my argument, which I've already shown. If the Islamic religious texts are incredible, then we can only look at the actions of the dwellers. The religious texts then become of minor or no relevance. I've already shown via mainstream science that the likely hood of God existing is extremely low. Which obliterates the credibility of all twenty five of the Islamic prophets and religious texts. [10]

Think about it, if God doesn't exist then what is religion all about? Morals? We have philosophy for that, why add all the rituals and piety? Besides wouldn't it be immoral to pass on false beliefs? What justification do we have for all the holy wars and crimes committed in the name of religion if God doesn't exist? None, we have no justification for the crimes committed in the name of religion. This impacts back to the resolution, because the evil deeds committed by followers of the Wahabi faith/religious movement cannot be mitigated by religious texts as my opponent tries to do.

The above is key to my argument and I've shown why and how. Therefore, I have proven that this is not a red herring.


IV. Judge a religion by it's dwellers' actions, not by the religion's original beliefs.

I've made many claims which I've backed up with evidence. Yes, I made some claims that I didn't back up until round two, thus they are no longer bare assertions. My opponent doesn't dispute whether the evil deeds occur or not in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we can safely assume they do exist. The question remains can Islam or any branch of Islam, in this case Wahabi, take the blame? Can we hold a religion accountable by the actions of its followers?

Yes, regardless of how highly your value or don't value a religion's religious texts, ultimately actions speak louder than words. There are many words within a religion. Can anyone honestly state they have read every religious text within Islam? I doubt many have if any. There are exactly 320,015 letters within the Quran.

"Quran letters: 320015 letters
Quran words: 77439 words
Quran verses: 6236 verses
Quran chapters: 114" [11]


This is just the Quran alone, then there is Hadith. Many of these words contradict themselves. There will always be dispute over the interpretation. Though some passages are more explicit than others.

Yet, this is common along religions. The words of an influential person states to be peaceful and the people are warlike. Would we let other moral guidelines get away with this? No, we would not allow philosophy nor nations laws to get away with this. Can you imagine how quickly a philosopher would get criticized? If nations had laws like this we would have chaos.

Its not feasible to read through all of Islam's religious texts every time a crime is committed or we feel the need for guidance. Instead, we must look at the actions of the followers and laws of the nations who follow the belief.


V. Youtube videos act as warrants, or proof not arguments.

If a person say A is true, then links to a video with evidence that A is true, then impacts back to the resolution, then videos can be used as evidence.

VI. Conclusion

My opponent unsuccessfully attempts to thwart a major part of my argument by labeling it as a red herring. My argument remains as follows, God doesn't exist, therefore all the Islamic prophets are false, annihilating the credibility of Islamic religious texts. Therefore, all that remains is the follower's actions. Except, for a tangled mess of contradictions and ritual.

As for my ignorance, it is true I haven't read all 77,439 words within the Koran. I can only guess at the number of words within Hadith. I contend I know enough. I know that the probability of God existing is extremely low. All that matters is the actions of the followers, and they are performing many vile deeds. Therefore, a person can only conclude that The Wahabi is the most evil faith/religious movement in existence today.

Thank you for debating this topic. Have a nice day.


VII. Sources
10. https://www.quora.com...
11. https://www.quora.com...
JustVotingTiedDebates

Con

Strategy in rebuttal : ("Argument" -Rebuttal)

Rebuttal:

1. "Instead, I will focus on the main parts of my argument and reinforce them. "-PRO.
- Even if I have already rebutted and destroyed them?

2. "Again, with the semantics. Even if you agree with my opponent, I don't think I should lose the debate based solely upon this. I did make the debate in anger at the injustices in Saudi Arabia. When your angry you don't always choose your words perfectly. "-PRO.
- Then say all of your arguments opposite, and bring this excuse.

3. "The credibility of the Islamic texts are key to my argument, which I've already shown. If the Islamic religious texts are incredible, then we can only look at the actions of the dwellers. The religious texts then become of minor or no relevance. I've already shown via mainstream science that the likely hood of God existing is extremely low. Which obliterates the credibility of all twenty five of the Islamic prophets and religious texts. "-PRO.
- Already rebutted. If Donald Trump is a Christian racist, Christianity=racism? Another observation. PRO changed 'three prophets' to '25 prophets' Poor PRO. He's debating a religion he knows nothing about!

4. "Think about it, if God doesn't exist then what is religion all about? Morals? We have philosophy for that, why add all the rituals and piety? Besides wouldn't it be immoral to pass on false beliefs? What justification do we have for all the holy wars and crimes committed in the name of religion if God doesn't exist? None, we have no justification for the crimes committed in the name of religion. This impacts back to the resolution, because the evil deeds committed by followers of the Wahabi faith/religious movement cannot be mitigated by religious texts as my opponent tries to do. "-PRO.
-A red herring. God exists or not should be another debate.

5. " Therefore, I have proven that this is not a red herring. "-PRO.
- Just saying that you have doesn't mean you really have.

6. " The question remains can Islam or any branch of Islam, in this case Wahabi, take the blame? Can we hold a religion accountable by the actions of its followers? "-PRO.
- FIrst you say you've already answered this question, then say it still remains?

7." Yes, regardless of how highly your value or don't value a religion's religious texts, ultimately actions speak louder than words. There are many words within a religion. Can anyone honestly state they have read every religious text within Islam? I doubt many have if any. There are exactly 320,015 letters within the Quran.
Quran letters: 320015 letters
Quran words: 77439 words
Quran verses: 6236 verses
Quran chapters: 114"-PRO.
- Actions are more than words. If nobody has read every text within Islam, has anybody seen every action by Muslims??????!!!!!!!

8. " Many of these words contradict themselves. There will always be dispute over the interpretation. Though some passages are more explicit than others. "-PRO.
- No proofs, no evidence, no examples.

9. "Instead, we must look at the actions of the followers and laws of the nations who follow the belief. "-PRO.
- Two things, firstly: Saudi Arabidoesn't follow the Wahhabi rules entirely. Secondly: Donald Trump.

10. " My opponent unsuccessfully attempts to thwart a major part of my argument by labeling it as a red herring. My argument remains as follows, God doesn't exist, therefore all the Islamic prophets are false, annihilating the credibility of Islamic religious texts. Therefore, all that remains is the follower's actions."-PRO.
- No proof or evidence that " God doesn't exist, therefore all the Islamic prophets are false, annihilating the credibility of Islamic religious texts."

Conclusions:

My opponent's vague arguments were like this:

R1: Full of accusations without any proof, and a randomly choosed YouTube video about racism in Saudi Arabia, which doesn't follow Wahhabism entirely.
R2: Accusing me of having red herrings in my arguments, when there are none. Mixing between 'faith' and 'religious movement', then accusing me of playing semantics!! Then accuses Islam of having contradictions in it's texts WITHOUT PROOF.
R3: Vague defence, and "focusing on the already rebutted 'main' parts of his argument and reinforcing them'

I REQUEST ANYBODY SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH TO JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT'S ORIGINAL BELIEF.

I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION.


Thank you,
Adil,
Qatar.


Sources:

http://www.debate.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://english.stackexchange.com...
https://www.quora.com...


Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
Great!
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DeuceKaboose// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: There really is no contender here. StupidApe quite frankly tore votingtieddebates to shreds. tiedebates gave inadequate evidence for most of his claims (Quora, really?) used improper grammar, put in erratic capitalization and misspelled many words in the course of his debate, making it hard to read and even comprehend what he is saying at certain parts.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or arguments. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. While the voter says that they perceived one piece of evidence from one of the sides as particularly bad, that is not enough. The voter has to show that evidence from the other side was substantial, and explain why they view evidence from Con as being insubstantial. Merely asserting it isn't enough.
************************************************************************
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
thnx otogun :)

Muslims did do wrong things. But that has no relationship with Islam.
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
Well the Saudis will run out of money soon..So they will die out anyway...
Posted by otogun 10 months ago
otogun
Looks like JustVotingTiedDebates will win. Oh just to be clear, he is right you cannot judge a person based on his faith if so Christians will be the first to go. Holy crusade, Priest molesting kids, the 1600's accusing innocent women of devil worshiping which got them killed which could be a form of misogyny , The KKK which lynched black people, killed almost anyone that was not White but mainly black, and Nazi's well we all know what they did. So, if Muslims need to be nuked or killed so mus Christians and all other life forms because, I can pull up a WHOLE bunch of history that every race, religion, and government did wrong.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
thnx :)
Posted by Muslimdebater 10 months ago
Muslimdebater
Will be following the debate
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
muslims are not nuked yet..
No votes have been placed for this debate.