The Instigator
JacobHession
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The construction of a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero shouldn't be stopped.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,184 times Debate No: 15751
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

JacobHession

Pro

In this debate I would like to argue for the creation of what has come to be known as the "Ground Zero Mosque." I would like to bring forth four main contentions. First, we have to realize that on 9/11 the United States was attacked by terrorists, not the Islamic faith. Second, we shouldn't tear down the freedoms upon which this country was built. Third, if the mosque is to be stopped, it will fuel the hatred and prejudice against the entire Islamic faith. Fourth, a law does not exist that actually makes the creation of this mosque illegal. It is for these reasons that I stand in strong affirmation of the resolution;

Resolved: The construction of a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero shouldn't be stopped.

For the purpose of clarity would like to offer the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Contention 1: Terrorist Extremists, not the Islamic faith, attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

When discussing the idea of building a mosque so near to Ground Zero we must remember one key fact. On 9/11 the United States was attacked by a group of rogue extremists. We were attacked by terrorists. However, while these evil men were of an Islamic faith, it was not the religion itself that attacked the U.S. Instead it was a group of irrational and terrible men. It is because of this fact that we must not stereotype all Muslims as evil or terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorists. We must not deny rational, level headed Muslims the opportunity to build a place of worship where they please.

Contention 2: The Freedom of Religion is the basis of this country.

If we look to the beginning of the United States we can see that this country was founded upon religious freedom. Many of the original colonists and pilgrims came to the New World in search of an escape from religious persecution in their homeland. These people simply wished to have the freedom to practice their religion openly. It is this fundamental belief that created the freedom of religion that is now protected by the first amendment. We cannot forsake the original values of this country for reasons based on pitiful stereotyping.

Contention 3: The denial of this Mosque will fuel the needless prejudice against Muslims.

The prejudice against anyone or anything of the Islamic faith is a disease that is running rampant in our country. It is, when put simply, stupid. We base this prejudice on irrational and illogical stereotypes. If this Mosque is denied it will show that the government supports this idiocy. This cannot be allowed. Freedom of Religion is a protection of the first amendment and the government cannot forsake it's foundation. We must uphold the basic values of this country and avoid falling victim to this pitiful prejudice against the Islamic faith.

Contention 4: A law does not exists that makes the construction of this Mosque illegal.

At this time a law that bans the construction of this Mosque doesn't exist. This shows that even above the arguments focused upon prejudice there is no substance for blocking the construction of the Mosque. On top of this it would directly contradict the constitution for Congress to pass such a law; as no law can be created to constrict the freedom of religion. This is stated in the First Amendment. From this we can see that there is no legal issue that arises to stop the construction of the Mosque.

Conclusion

The points I have presented today show that there is simply no reason to negate the resolution. If one still wishes to go against the construction of the Mosque; they also wish to go against logic, rationality and above all else the very foundation of our country. It is for the convincing reasons I have given that the vote should be in Affirmation.
CiRrK

Con

==NC==

1. The majority of Americans oppose the building of the mosque

The Hill writes:

"The CNN/Opinion Research survey showed that 68 percent oppose the plan to build the mosque, compared to 29 percent who favor it. Forty-three percent of Democrats support it and 54 percent say they are opposed. Eighty-two percent of Republicans are against the mosque, as opposed to just 17 percent who support it. A whopping 70 percent of independents are against the mosque, compared to 24 percent who support it."

Moreover, the vast majority of polls range from 60% – 75%

Insofar as the US is a Democratic-Republic, the will of people cannot be ignored when it comes to policy options and initiative. Moreover, as the poll suggests this issue spans the entire political spectrum, which is against it, conservatives, liberals and independents alike. This means that the driving factor is not specifically that of Islamophobia, but it's an issue of rational sensitivity.

Plus, if the driving factor for the building of the mosque was that of religious tolerance and religious sensitivity to build community so to speak, then the builders of the mosque should recognize the insensitivity of their actions and move the mosque elsewhere. This turns the AC.

2. Using the name Cordoba sparks controversy

If people are unaware, Muslims during the age of the Caliphate would build mosques in the areas they conquered. This was true because it symbolized that this area was not just under the control of Muslims, but under the control of Allah's Law, namely Sharia Law. Cordoba was a massive Muslim victory in Spain, which then became the capital of the Cordoba Caliphate. And, as you might have guessed, the name of the mosque near ground zero is the Cordoba House. This reason may seem unimportant at first, but it again strikes at the intentions and motives of the mosque builders. They are building a mosque near ground zero (an area Muslim extremists claim a great victory over the U.S.) and they call it Cordoba, an area of a great Muslim victory over the west.

==AC==

1st Amendment

--> The 1st Amendment is constrained with the notion of "Separation of Church and State." At the point where religion enters the realm of secular politics, the 1st Amendment cannot be seen as an outright defense for certain actions. This mosque exemplifies an undermining of the notion of the separation of church and state. Immam Feisal (the Immam in charge of the mosque) writes in a Jordanian newspaper: "People asked me right after the 9/11 attacks as to why do movements with political agendas carry [Islamic] religious names? Why call it ‘Muslim Brotherhood' or ‘Hezbollah (Party of Allah)' or ‘Hamas' or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement'? I answer them this — that the trend towards Islamic law and justice begins in religious movements, because secularism has failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . .The only law that the Muslim needs exists already in the Koran and the Hadith." A state based on the Koran and Hadith could only be called a theocracy." Clearly the person who will be running the mosque is not one of religious moderation.

--> The 1st Amendment protects against a state religion and a deprivation of practicing ones religion. Stopping the building of one mosque doesnt infringe on this. A plethora of mosques exist NYC, so the prevention of one mosque doesnt deprive ne of the right to practice ones religion.

1. Terrorists =/= Muslims

--> Even though this is true, unfortunately Muslim extremism is a sect of Islam. If Muslims were as tolerant and as sensitive as you propose, and which I believe they are, then it would seem logical that they would listen to the concerns of those that died in the 9/11 attacks. But, clearly the controversy has not ended.

--> The House is considering investigating where funds of the Mosque have come from. There has been enough evidence presented to the House that there are possible terrorist ties. This comes from the Hill Report cited above.

2. FoR

--> XA 1st Amendment arguments

3. Fuel for Islamaphobia

--> (TURN) Since this controversy had been sparked, anti-Muslim protests have increased not decreased. By denying the people what they want, it is you who is sparking more Islamaphobia (which now more people will see as legitimate). You are giving justification to the far-right extremists and turning moderates towards sympathizing with the far right.

4. No law

--> There doesnt need to be a "law" to stop the building of certain area or property. Executive orders exist, and also the proposal to take the property via eminent domain.

--> This doesnt say why the building shouldnt be stopped, just that there is nothing on record in the status quo. That does not preclude the making of a law to prevent the building of the mosque.
Debate Round No. 1
JacobHession

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will start by attacking my opponent's case then move on to re establishing my own contentions.

In my opponent's first contention he stated that the majority of Americans oppose the Mosque's construction. While this may be true, it is not a legitimate argument. The fact that many people agree or disagree with an idea doesn't make it right or wrong. Take the example of slavery in the United States. Originally a majority of people were not opposed to it; however as time passed it has come to be viewed as an atrocity and a scar on the history of the U.S. This applies to the construction of the mosque because while many people oppose it; it is not necessarily wrong.
My opponent also stated that it is an issue of sensitivity; not an issue of Islamophobia. It is true that it is an issue of sensitivity. However we must look to what causes this sensitivity. This sensitivity is caused by a fear of Islam. Why else would these groups be sensitive to a mosque; when said mosque and its builders had nothing to do with the attacks? This sensitivity must be caused by something. Perhaps the builder's of the mosque are being insensitive; however we cannot hold this as a reason for opposition is the sensitivity is so pointless.

In my opponent's second contention he stated that the name of the mosque sparks controversy. He argued that the name Cordoba was a symbol of Islamic victory over the west. In considering this argument we must remember two things. First the victory over the Spanish city occurred more than a thousand years ago. Second that this argument is based solely on speculation. There is no actual proof that the builders or the funding is related in any way to extremists. When we look at these two facts we see that my opponent's argument shouldn't be considered in this debate.

Now to move on to re establishing my own case.

In my first contention I argued that the U.S. was attacked by extremists not the Islamic faith. The basis of this argument was that we shouldn't classify all Muslims as terrorists. The group that attacked was a group of extremists that launched a terrible attack against the United States. My opponent attempted to refute this contention by arguing the House is "considering investigating where funds of the Mosque have come from." He then went on to say that "there are possible terrorist ties." If there is only a possibility of terrorist ties in the funding that is not enough cause to violate the rights of the people of this country.

In my second contention I argued that Freedom of religion protects the creation of the mosque. The basis of this argument was that the core values as well as the constitution protect the right of a person to freely practice their religion. I was arguing that the mosque's construction should not be stopped because they have every right to build it. My opponent tried to argue that not allowing the mosque to be built would not infringe upon the right of Muslims to freely practice their religion. This argument is entirely invalid. Not allowing this mosque to be built would be limiting the ability of Muslims in New York to practice their religion. I do agree that other mosques do exist in New York but we must look at this from a ideological standpoint as well. If the government denies the construction of this mosque it makes a statement of distrust and prejudice to all Muslims in America. This is simply unacceptable.

In my third contention I argued that denying the construction of this mosque will fuel prejudice against Muslims in America. The basis of this contention is that if the government is to intervene by stopping the mosque it will show the people of the United States that prejudice is acceptable. This is unacceptable. My opponent attempted to refute this contention by arguing that the mosque creates controversy and therefore increases Islamophobia and prejudice. While this may be true I feel that we must value an good example set by our government over a poor example set by part of the people.

In my fourth contention I argued that there is no law that can be used to stop the mosque. This was supplemented by the fact that according to the First Amendment a law cannot be created to block the freedom of religion. My opponent attempted to refute this by using the example of executive orders and eminent domain. However neither of these examples are plausible if there is not a reasonable cause. I have proven that the cause for opposition is prejudice and irrational hatred. Obviously neither of these are reasonable. It is because of this that we can see that my opponent's attacks are invalid.
CiRrK

Con

==NC==

1. Majority Oppose

--> First, he concedes the statistics

Majority =/= right or wrong

--> In a Democratic-Republic yes it does. He didnt provide an alternative so the framework of a democracy is implicitly conceded for the round.

Slavery was wrong and condoned by the majority

--> This is a false claim. It was popular in the South, but never took hold in the North or the West. Moreover, even the South is a faulty sectarian claim t make since the "majority" never supported it. Only the ruling minority. Majority means the numerical value, so technically the majority did oppose slavery

--> Not analogous to the mosque example. The mosque is one act in one situation. Slavery was an act which denied the fundamentally humanity of a group of people and demeaned them as property.

Sensitivity comes from Islamaphobia

--> Sensitivity derives from the fact that a group of muslim extremists flew two planes in the twin towers. The sensitivity derives from that memory.

Builders being insensitive does not mean there should be opposition

--> No warrant

--> Extend the turn. Since the claim is that the mosque is there to build community, ect, then they should not build it there because it is insensitive

2. Cordoba

Happened 1000 years ago

--> So? Muslims probably know their own history, especially the golden age of the Caliphate

No link to builders

--> Not needed. Remember the tag of the argument is that is SPARKS CONTROVERSY. This magnifies the link that accepting the AC will spark more islamaphobia

==AC==

1. Terrorists =/= Muslims

Quesitonable funding and possible terrorists ties isnt enough

--> That is clearly enough. Until these questionable funds are disclosed and the actual donor is revealed then the building should be stopped. Moreover, having possible terrorist ties just kicks this argument off the bat, because if it is seen that yes there are terrorist ties, then the insensitivity link is just magnified.

--> Extend the dropped tolerance argument.

2. FoR

--> Extend the Separation of Church and State argument, he completely dropped it. This is very important because the NC cannot access the benefit of the FoR argument because the notion of church and state is being undermined. This means the AC has a clear access to the majority argument because the only constraint on the will of the majority is the constitution, and since he cant access the constitution anymore, we MUST look to the democratic framework.

It limits ability to practice

--> CNN reports that there are more than 100 Mosques in NYC. Stopping the building of one does not hinder practicing ones religion.

--> Extend argument that the argument link would have to be systemic or at least in the majority to be a gross violation of the first amendment. But this ist the case.

3. Will fuel Islamaphobia

--> He gives no warrant that government acting will result in more Islamaphobia

--> Extend the turn, which he dropped. Violating the will of the majority will simply piss off the majority of Americans which will promote sympathy for far right extremists who ARE islamaphobic.

--> XA Pro-C2 which magnifies the link

4. No law to stop

He says no reason to use an executive order or eminent domain

--> The will of the majority is reason enough.

--> He implicitly concedes the possible avenues to stop the building.

--> Extend the dropped argument that this point doesnt make logical sense because it is using the SQ to determine if future acts are wrong or right.

==Underview==

1. Under every AC argument he dropped at least one response. At this point it ill be very hard for the AC to win offense off his case, since drops are concessions.

2. He dropped a turn (which is clear offense). This gives me the ability to access the Islamaphobia argument from the AC, which is also magnified from the NC C2

3. s long as he dropped responses on the 1st Amendment and FoR argument, there is no effective framework or alternative he provides in opposition to the majority will, which he concedes. This gives clear reason to vote off the NC itself.
Debate Round No. 2
JacobHession

Pro

JacobHession forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Con

Extend my arguments. Good debate : )
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Your*
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
lol @ social. No. If u refer to my argument I said it wasnt "analogous." Which means the situations arent completely comparable. This does not mean I believe what you said. You example would be more analogous than the using the institution of slavery.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
If a bunch of rascists don't want a black family to move in to their neighborhood does that take away that family's right to live there? Apparently CiRrk believes so.
Posted by Extremely-Far-Right 5 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
See, I would have accepted it, except that you defined it as a mosque, and it isn't. But Mosque or not I oppose it anyways.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
I will not give an unfair advantage at this point to your opponent, because this is a debate between you and him, but if you have faith in this dispute over the name Cordoba, then please send me a PM or something similar and I will gladly tell you why your point is weak.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
It has a specific R2 function, obviously which I wont disclose in the comments section. However, all the points here are conditional, so if I dont want to I wont go for it.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
"2. Using the name Cordoba sparks controversy"

Do you stand strong by this point, or is it just good to you at first glance?
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
I've wanted to debate this :D
Posted by Freeman 5 years ago
Freeman
Also, there's a disjunction between what you claim and what the resolution is.

You claim: "In this debate I would like to argue for the creation of what has come to be known as the "Ground Zero Mosque.""

That implies that the Mosque should be built.

Your resolution, however, is as follows: "The construction of a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero shouldn't be stopped."

That implies that the mosque should be allowed to be built.

Those are two completely different contentions.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
JacobHessionCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit to me is concession of all 7 points.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
JacobHessionCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm Giving Con vote becuase of the forfiet, thus making pro's agruments dropped.
Vote Placed by briski 5 years ago
briski
JacobHessionCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't understand how law in a representative democracy works. Also the idea that countering islamophobes only makes islamophobia and terrorism worse is ridiculous. Pro had good, logical arguments even with the skipped round. Con hadn't introduced or clarified or applied anything said after his first round that required further discussion anyway.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
JacobHessionCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could have taken this without the forfeit.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
JacobHessionCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate. I good final round by Pro would have won, but he forfeited, leaving points unanswered. DDOdoes not have the rule that dropping an argument concedes the point. Con should have cited the general use of zoning ordinances to control placement of churches, but allusion to the principle sufficed.