The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The burka (and burkini) should be banned.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,096 times Debate No: 94957
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Welcome to my debate.

1st round: Acceptance
2nd round: Opening argument
3rd round: Rebuttals
4th round: Closing statements

This debate is in response to the recent burkini ban in Cannes, France. It is a source for great controversy with claims that it unfairly limits freedom.

I will be arguing for the notion that the burka and burkini should be banned not only on security grounds (which don't apply to the burkini) but also due to what they stand for and our desire to have such ideals thriving in society. This will extend to a larger point about the importance of freedom in our society.

In this debate I expect sources and sounds reasoning. No trolls or silly arguments. Good luck!


I accept because I am not someone who limits freedom of religion. I recently saw a Muslim woman bearing a hat to cover her hair and long sleeves to cover her body and yet she was forced to take her clothes off on the beach by the French police for no reason. That's not protecting the people, it's harassment in every way. This society is wrong in every way, we can walk around naked on the beach, but we're not allowed to keep our modesty and be chaste.
Debate Round No. 1


Western values are not summarised by freedoms for everything. We don't have an unlimited freedom of speech, as endorsing and encouraging a terrorist is against the law; a law many people would happily have in place. We do not have freedom of clothing (and therefore expression), as it is against the law to walk down the street completely naked. Our freedoms are already restricted, and thank goodness they are.

A society that we want to live in is not one that is unrelentingly in defence of freedom. The notion of tolerating the intolerant simply is not a notion that we abide by nor one we should desire. Consequently it is our duty in order to protect the society that we have to restrict the oppressive and intolerant.

Today we have a trend of progressive moral relativism in which all opinions and all values are given equal footing in the name of freedom and inclusiveness. I propose that this is an evil and wicked idea because it seeks to undermine all of the hard work of true progressives and people of good moral principles who sought to give us the freedoms and security that we currently have. Freedom is incredibly important, however only a complete anarchist would claim freedom has no limits.

The burka is a symbol of oppression (simply look at this thing; it looks more like a big potato sack than a free human being (1)) that we ought not to tolerate in modern western civilizations. It completely eradicates face to face conversation by one's inability to see the faces of those we speak to. It radiates a very cruel and harmful notion that women must cover themselves head to toe lest a man finds them attractive. It teaches those who wear it that the female body is something either too precious or too foul to be seen by the opposite sex, which in no way improves the lives of the women in our society. I don't say this as a feminist but simply as a humanitarian.

Do we want in our societies the trivialisation or normalisation of a self degrading and self deprecating ideology? This is a very simple question. Con here would call the hiding of the body moderate modesty. I propose that it is a very obvious ploy to dehumanise and so devalue the women con tries to protect. This nonsense tries to present sexual attraction as a thing to be feared and suppressed rather than respected and enjoyed.

What we see today is dangerous oppression which tries to infiltrate itself into our society. Liberals for a long time have tried to bring oppressive, old fashioned, and simply worse cultures into especially the UK masquerading as multiculturalism. The freedoms and security that we currently enjoy may soon be under serious pressure (Look at the attacks all across Germany as a consequence of the migrant crisis (2)) due to the constant bombardment of self deprecating and oppressive cultures. It must not be allowed to continue.



Though how does covering your body have anything to do with terrorism? I like how you have the guts to talk about oppression. Many women wear the Burqa out of their own will and then you are the one taking their right to wear it. How is forcing a woman to walk out the door without her religious clothing not oppression. Explain that to me. You're the one saying that they are oppressed and they are the ones saying that they aren't oppressed. They are oppressed for one reason only and that is because the western society can't leave them be and let them walk with whatever they like.

Why do women cover their breasts? Think about it like covering yourself like any other human being should do since we're not animals, but then to another extent. Unlike some women today who literally walk out as animals with their thighs exposed in the marketplaces, as prophesied by the prophet Muhammad SAW. Women have always worn veil-like clothing, but suddenly it's a problem. The Burqa is a symbol of utmost modesty and that the woman is not a piece of meat that should be shared with anyone. The ban on the Burkini is even more ridiculous, women are practically forced to wear bikinis. The bikini goes against the Abrahamic faiths in every single way. It has come to a point that when a woman wears a sweater she is already a potential terrorist according your governments. What a joke.

Our whole society is based on sex. Car ads have half-naked women in them. Beer ads have half-naked women in them. Food ads have half-naked women in them. This dating culture is so wrong. Breaking up with someone has become completely normal, breaking up with someone is like breaking a toothbrush. Maybe even faster than that. Someone leaves the other person and the this person is scarred. People don't even marry anymore, they go ahead and have sexual relations with whoever they feel like they can have sex with. Anyone that comes across they grab. The Qur'an tells to the women that they should cover the hair and the chest and you force them to violate that. The Qur'an also mentions a loose garment and again you try to take their right away.

Maybe a law could be placed that they have to show their ID whenever they enter a store, a train station, public transport or whatever. You could add a law that instructs these women to show their face in certain situations. I'm totally for that to ensure safety, but to completely ban the Burqa is ludicrous.
Here's another question. What should a Muslim woman wear on the beach if the woman can't even wear a hat with non-revealing basic clothing?
Debate Round No. 2


Unsurprisingly straw men left, right, and centre. I never said anything to do with terrorism yet you bring it up. Wearing the burqa out of free will means nothing when they have been taught that the female body is either unworthy or too special to be seen by men. If I teach a child that flagellation is a good thing, can we possibly say this child isn't being abused? Just because one thinks something, that does not mean it isn't the product of an oppressive ideology.

The burqa prevents face to face conversation at the very least, and so its banning is in the interests of social cohesion and communication. There is already a law stopping you from showing your entire body walking down the streets, because it would contribute nothing to society to allow such a thing. Likewise men and women cannot walk down the street committing flagellation. Consequently I think a fair case can be made to likewise ban the wearing of clothing that implies an optimal society would be one in which half the population was never seen.

You have the audacity to say that completely covering yourself shows that women aren't pieces of meat to be shared; believe it or not but in a western society women have the choice to be with whoever they wish, the partner consenting. You dare to say that they can only establish independence if they are not seen? What a dreadful thought.

With the burkini, the options are not burkini or bikini. There are many forms of swimwear that do not show as much as a bikini, and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. I cannot avoid noticing your hypocrisy when saying I am oppressing by opposing the burqa, when you describe women who show their thighs as 'animals'. This is enormous cruelty, and to say the alternative to perhaps an oversexualised society (although with far fewer problems as overly conservative) is to completely hide women and so eradicate all sexual attraction is abominable. Men can control themselves without women having to be hidden. And women have the right to show themselves in spite of your accusations as to the will power of men.

The Qu'ran does indeed say a number of awful things that are destructive in a tolerable society. However just because the Qu'ran says something, that is no reason to accommodate it in a progressive society. We have no desire to descend to the terrible state the world used to be in when the Qu'ran was a source of morality and wisdom. You say that 'This dating culture is so wrong', which I will agree is a little out of control. Society would be best suited to toning down the levels of promiscuity. However to bring up this point in a debate about the burqa is insane. Encouraging small levels of modesty in society is not achieved by completely hiding women in sacks.

To answer your final question: Muslim women can wear whatever they want so long as it abides by the laws of the land. It is fundamentally counter productive in a morally good society to permit such obvious acts of self deprecation.

The burqa and burkini are garments which send a very clear message to those around it. It says that men are utterly incapable of resisting that which resides beneath the potato sack. It dehumanises women, taking away their voices and faces making more like objects than any women in western society today. It treats sex and sexual attraction as a source of fear and corruption.

This is nothing that society should be so eager to protect. Freedom must always have limits in order to preserve a good society. Imagine a society in which every women decided to wear a burqa. Is this a society that would have greater communication or happiness? Of course not. It would be a disaster for womens rights and welfare. Thus why should we permit such a horror in short supplies?


Freedom should definitely have its limits. Banning the Burqa is not one of those limits. Women who wear the Burqa have done protests because of the ban because it's not anyone's right to force a woman to not wear a Burqa. You know what I find wrong in society? Women being seen as pieces of meat as they walk out with bikinis in cities. You don't find me going to these women and telling them that they can't wear that, do you? I honestly do think women can't walk out half-naked. This is my opinion, do I speak out about it? No. Likewise, people need to leave chaste and modest women be. It's the sexual revolution that has ruined our way of thinking, now all we see in the women is their outside and looks. We even have songs where people insult their own mother and talk about women like animals, worse than animals. They talk about the woman as if they are talking about a dog. You're talking about how the Burqa is against women's rights even though the women who wear the Burqa are saying that they are feeling oppressed because of your society and governments. Here's a video. It's full of women wearing their "potato sacks" and they feel fine (and oppressed because of your governments).

A progressive society according to you is a society where abortion is high, where births outside of wedlock are over 50%, where homosexuality and lesbianism is common and even seen as good, where prostitution is legal and common, where drug addiction and alcohol addiction is seen as normal and the deaths because of the 2 are fine and not a threat, where STDs are common, where child molestation and pedophilia is common, where pornography is blatantly put on television, billboards and magazines, where the vow of marriage is taken as a joke, where gambling and interest money has become the most normal thing in the world. The word family is still a treasured word in Muslim countries, but the word family has become a very abstract term in the West and even the words male and female have become abstract in the West. A society where women's intellect isn't important nor' seen is what you call progressive. A society where people are acting as animals openly is progressive. A society where killing innocent people is part of war is progressive. This is what you call progressive
What country kills and kills and keeps killing millions and millions of people? The Western or the Muslim countries? Why do you think some Muslims march out on the streets and shout that they want Sharia? Because your governments and societies are corrupt and you don't even see it.

I'll make a statement that probably everyone here will disagree with. Sharia Law and Islam are the only things that can save our countries and societies. I'll make clear what I mean with that. I'm not starting a revolution nor' am I obliged to do so, since Sharia tells me to follow the law of the land that I live in.
Scholarly opinion on enforcing Sharia:
I have no problem with the law of whoever, until a law limits Muslims from practicing their faith. This is what is happening and it is even going as far as banning Muslims from the US. Secular governments encourage sexual immorality, gambling, interest dealings, alcohol and drugs. It's destroying everyone and no-one bats an eye. You kill yourselves and you supposedly need to tell the world what to do. I see this woman in Somalia walking 30 days (in her Hijab) just to live and when I'm here I get to see people who just kill themselves with alcohol and drugs. Robin Williams had everything in the world, yet he killed himself.

Alright, whatever. Let's say you'd ban the Burqa, but that's it. The Niqab is not banned. Why would you ban the Burkini? Enlighten me on how you justify that. It covers just as much as a wetsuit. The woman who was being searched for wearing long sleeves was even less covered than that. Here is some French oppression:

I'm going to assume you're a male since your username starts with Sam.

Those who avoid the major sins and immoralities, only [committing] slight ones. Indeed, your Lord is vast in forgiveness. He was most knowing of you when He produced you from the earth and when you were fetuses in the wombs of your mothers. So do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him. (An-Najm 32)
He means that you should not declare yourselves free of such temptations, because you are not. Don't say that you don't think like that.
Do you really not understand how men work? Men are weak when it comes down to sexual desires and if you don't acknowledge that then you are lying to yourself. I'm male and even I understand how deceitful men are. All it is today is "Oh she's so cute, she is so beautiful, I can't stop thinking about her", I bet that if the woman gained another 40 or 50 pounds that opinion would change. Today it is all just a flirting and a dating culture. The boy is kind of staring at the girl, he's checking her out every chance he gets and kind of start volunteering at the animal shelter because he finds out that she's there. He stares, he looks over and over again, he tries to get her attention, he laughs extra loud when she walks by and then checks if she looked. He appreciates her voluntary services for the distribution of the flyers. You can see right through it. Sometimes girls are really smart and sometimes they're really dumb. "Oh he just appreciates my flyer distribution!". No, he doesn't. That's really dumb. When I ask whether the person has talked about it with his parents he says "No! They will kill me!". When I would ask whether they talked to the girl's parents, they say "No, I can't do that!". What we understand from that mentality is that this person just want sex.

The whole point of the Burqa is to look like a potato sack as you mentioned. This way you won't look at the woman's outside and her body. We Muslims follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the prophet SAW and if you take that right away then you're asking for trouble. You have some women today who walk out with their Hijab, but then they go ahead and walk with clothes that are so tight that they reveal every shape of the body, as prophesied by the prophet Muhammad SAW.
Debate Round No. 3


Although the final argument is not for rebuttals I will comment on a couple of your points. You say that we have no right to tell people what they can and can't wear, yet you appear to have no problems with the current ban on nudity. Why is nudity banned? It is banned firstly because it is damaging to social cohesion, but also it is banned because we don't want a society in which special areas of the body are on show for all to see. The burqa is the same idea, as societies would be far better off if women can be seen and aren't expected to cover themselves.

You say that women in bikinis are therefore seen as pieces of meat. This is a fallacious argument as finding someone sexually attractive is not the same as seeing them solely as an object; why can't we appreciate one's body whilst at the same time understanding that they are a human being?

You mention the problems that we have in society, as well as some that simply aren't problems like homosexuality; there is strong reason to suppose homosexuality is genetic in nature and so cannot be considered a sin. Muslim societies indeed have less homosexuality and adultery, but only because they execute everyone who does it.

Sharia law is an old fashioned horror that needs to die a death. It is primal and has no place in a tolerant world. Anyone who values the rights of minorities or women, or any humanitarian can look it up and see for themselves.

The burkini would be banned because it too symbolises the oppression of women. If we wish to reach a world with the greatest well being, is that found by permitting public self deprecation? Self flagellation has already been banned (1). Why should we stop at that? Indeed wet suits cover much of the body and some wear burkinis for skin conditions, however the wet suit is not worn to deliberately hide the person who wears it. It is a way of staying warm in the water.

You talk about men as if they are completely incapable of self restraint. Of course most men would find a scantily clad beautiful woman attractive. However it is unfair and misandric to say that these men are not able to keep their hands off this woman. If you want to abolish sexual attraction then covering up women is a great way to do so. However sexual attraction not only is a key aspect of attraction in general, but also is a source of much happiness and merriment.

Now for my closing statement:

The burqa and burkini share a number of underlying features. They both exist to cover up the bodies of women. In the case of the burka, even the woman's eyes are not allowed to be seen, lest men disintegrate into mindless sex addicts. This ridiculous notion is quite clearly a very damaging one in society, as it will destroy communication and interaction between the two sexes. It makes women even further the objects of men, implying that they must act to protect themselves from men, rather than men learn a little self restraint.

Why must we put up with this nonsense? This by no means restricts ones freedom of religion, as no one is stopping a woman being muslim. What it does do is limit their freedom of expression. They are not allowed to act upon their degrading beliefs. Much like a naturist may firmly believe in the wonders of being nude, acting on such a thing in public is not permitted. Our society does not need to tolerate public acts of self deprecation. If we were to imagine a society that has the highest well being possible, would it be one in which women hid themselves in fear of male sexuality? I do not think it is. It is for this reason that we should attempt to ban the burqa and burkini, and so hold firm of the high wellbeing we currently have in society, rather than let it descend into the moral cesspool of extremist islamic countries in the middle east.



Well first off, I'm glad to see France removing the ban on the Burkini. It was obvious that it was the stupidest ban you could place.

The Burqa is not harming anyone, nudity is. Homosexuality is damaging society and yet it is endorsed. Homosexuality is not genetic, despite what you might have read. What we do know is that homosexuality is caused by your surroundings. Homosexuality damages the youth's minds and increases sexual transmitted diseases.

You have people literally changing their private parts even before the age of 18 and people respect them for that choice. If a woman wants to be chaste and modest it is looked down upon. What do you have here? Pollution. Depression. Prostitution. Drugs.

Men are incapable of self restraint, either you masturbate or you have a "girlfriend" or you have a spouse. You can call me a bigot or unrealistic, but you can go ahead and look at the statistics.
I'm not saying that the man will not keep his hand off the woman, but a Burqa is the ultimate "cockblocker" that will the cause the man not to look at the woman.
Here you have an experiment, it clearly shows how horny men are and what the purpose of the Islamic dress code is:

Sharia Law is the only law that fixes society. All the examples I've given are fixed with Sharia. Shaira Law has punishments that can be seen as harsh, but it's the right way to deal with criminals. I sit here and I see a 16 year old killing his own mother,sister and grandmother and what is his punishment? 10 years of prison. Only 10 years for shamelessly killing 3 innocent human beings. In Sharia the murderer can either be forgiven, sued for xxx amount of money or he can receive the death penalty, the perfect way to deal with murderers. It is even legal in the Netherlands for women to walk out topless exposing their breasts to men and children. Do you call that progressive?

Regarding the death penalties you mentioned in Sharia.
Homosexuality is only punishable by death when the act is done publicly. Adultery is punishable by death when the sex is witnessed by four trustworthy people.

You're describing modesty as hiding a person. Can you not recognize a woman in a Burkini? Is it so that if you can't see the woman's boobs and butt that they are hiding? Well if that's the case you've proven my point that men only see women as objects. The Burkini is the perfect suit for Muslim women who want to practice their religion and swim and you take that right away. The Muslims are saying that they wear the clothes because of their own choice and you keep claiming that it is oppressive or whatever and then you remove their rights. I find it disgusting that you justified the French police harassing a woman. It's not called protecting society, it is called sexual assault. Police officers forcing a woman to remove her clothes for no reason is called sexual assault. So you think it is okay for me to go to a random woman and force her to take her sweater off? You think it is okay to force a Muslim woman or any woman to strip?

I have shown you clear statistics that men are indeed mindless sex addicts, especially at young age. Note: I'm a man
This notion is not destroying society, but pornography and women being objectified as sex toys is destroying society.
Christians in the West have lost their moral sense, up to a point where they produce a song and mention "Shake your booty for the lord". Instead of reciting their scripture they go ahead and sing an R&B song in their own Churches. This is happening.

You're admitting that you don't allow Muslims to follow the Qur'an, so therefore there is no freedom of religion. It's like telling a Christian they can't pray to Jesus AS, even the Bible orders women to wear a veil. Women always wore veils. The veil is not oppression, many Muslim women have spoken out against your lies about "oppression". We need to allow women to wear their Niqabs, Burqas, Burkinis, Hijabs and all forms of modesty. Men are not forcing their wives to wear Burqas, it's even prohibited within Islam. Stop the oppression and stop the sexual assaults.

The last link you gave me is about a Shia practice that is rejected by more than 95% of Muslims. Shias are not even considered Muslims among the Ulemah. Shias believe that anyone who is not born in a Shia family is either born homosexual or is a whore, depending on the person's gender. The Shias are the ones who made up Taqiyya.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
Both of you (sorry I only read Sam's comment before I posted my previous comment).
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
Oh okay. You're very welcome.
Posted by CuriousFear 1 year ago
Thanks @missmozart for your advice, it's obvious that most people would not agree with my statements about Sharia for example, but I'm happy that you at least acknowledge that women have the right to wear their dresses.
Posted by Samcoder1 1 year ago
I appreciate the detailed advice and thoughts on the debate! I thought debating the issue may help me discover my own thoughts on the matter although I will certainly look more into the debate for further clarification.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
-RFD- part 1

First, well done to both debaters. It was a tremendous effort by both and a very interesting read. All in all, I found it quite difficult to decided a winner.

Round 2- main arguments

Pro's main points here were:
~the burka/burkini is a symbol of oppression
~it dehumanises women
Pro's argument was well-written and developed overall but I found myself coming across a few holes and asking questions such as 'wasn't it the women's choice to wear it in the first place?' I wish he could have considered these obvious doubts a bit more and how to refute them in order to make his argument more convincing.
Con's main points were:
~it is a part of a woman's religion, ie. their own choice
~our society is too concentrated on sex (commercials etc.)
Con effectively explains how wearing these garments are not an oppression but in fact, a freedom. This totally refuted Pro's point in my opinion. However, Con's second point on how our society is too focused on sex was pretty unconvincing and way too exaggerated.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
-RFD- part 2

Round 3-Rebuttals

Good strong rebuttals here, well done. I particularly liked how you brought up the point about women not being able to communicate properly. Perhaps you could have supported some of your points a bit more or given examples. For example, you say that there are many alternatives to the burkini. Such as...?
Your rebuttals were good in general. I just thought that you exaggerated too much about how over-sexualised and immoral our society has gotten. Also, your link to the YouTube video may not be the most accurate source....

Round 4- Closing statements

I think in general, Pro failed to fully prove the amount of damage burkas/burkinis would actually do to society. Even from reading his arguments a few times, I am still unconvinced why banning them would benefit us. Con however, shows that there is really no harm in allowing them and the fact that the French government changed their minds about the ban, really managed to strengthen his point.

Advice to Pro:
Consider things from your opponent's/audience's point of view. Read your arguments over and check for holes or anything that could easily knock your points over.
Advice to Con:
I would just say to try and write in a less exaggerated way. Exaggeration is very good for debating only when it's mild and discreet but some of your sentences sounded almost far-fetched because you over-used this technique.

Well done again, you're both very good debaters. Have a nice day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missmozart 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. A magnificent effort by both sides.