The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The mullahs are not bigots. Your vote.

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: 8/7/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 78491
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Max.Wallace

Con

You called republicans the biggest bigots. There is no bigotry in Islam? Bring it.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

I accept this debate, present your first case.
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Con

The mullahs are the worst bigots ever. period.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

I was hoping Con would have more of a specific argument with appropriately applied sources, seeing as them being Pro implies the BOP rests on them. However, I suppose I will go into this debate with the BOP on myself.

(1) The religion of Islam has malleability to it; as do most religions. However within the borders of Republicanism/the ideology of the Republican Party comes a very strict set of bigoted/intolerant principles that such politicians must follow.

(1A) A specific example to support the above claim is Donald Trump, a current U.S candidate of the GOP/Republican Party. They have made several racist and infactual claims across their amount of speeches, yet such a bigoted individual is favoured by 24% of America's Republican voters, which allows me to feel inclined that Republicans rely on bigotry for success.

(1B) To address the very concept that "muslims" are the biggest/worst bigots: Islam is no more a religion of violence and inhumanity than Christianity is. As both religions follow [for the most part] a book which deems inhumane and primitive acts "holy".

An example of a comparison between Islam and Christian law would be the following:

Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).

Qur'an (7:81) - "Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being "among great sins."

However in the very same light the Bible also directly condemns homosexuality.


Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

Sources: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Both the religion of Islam and Christianity are equally bigoted/discriminatory towards the act of homosexuality. However, Republicans also share a similar view on this, yet what sets them aside is the action taken against the homosexual agenda/community.

Republicans often take action in the states they lead [red states] against the homosexual populace; implementing right-infringing laws that directly prohibit homosexuals from the human right to have sexual relations/marry/co-exist.

Such famous examples are the Indiana laws that prohibited homosexuals from being granted access to services distributed to the public by private business whose religious owners choose that their customers could not be homosexuals.

Similar things were also seen in the state of Arkansas.

Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The simple truth of the matter is, unless one accounts for the religiously fundamentalists in Middle Eastern countries, Republicans take action, these anti-gay religious folk [Muslims are the focus] do not.

(1C) Republicans are often caught in the act of a lie/discriminatory claim with no statistical/factual backing and are corrected in their "errors" by organizations such as politifact.

An example being Donald Trump's many controversial claims brought up in his handful of political speeches [especially at his presidential announcement speech]. Politifact dug into the truth and uncovered it for the public eye.

"Illegal immigration wasn't a subject that was on anybody's mind until I brought it up at my announcement."

In the above quote, Donald Trump is blatantly lying in order to glorify himself for political gain. As suggested by the "fact meter" next to the quote on the politifact website. Illegal immigration has been a very controversial and highly-discussed component of American politics for generations [especially in the 1970's] and was a major factor in the 2012 Presidential Election.

What I am contending in the above statements is that bigotry also requires ignorance [lack of knowledge/facts] which plays a lrager and more common role in the Republican Party [GOP] than it does in Islam.

Source: http://www.politifact.com...

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The burden of proof should have been on Pro's shoulders, however it seems not to be. I await Pro's rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Con

Why do you type you argument in whispers?

Why do you not speak in equal text, marketeer?

You presentation sucks.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

Con has not presented an argument in the last round; leaving me to extend my points without them being refuted. However, Con seems intent on trolling.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'm not up on a side. I'm not taking a racial side with my username, nor have I made any comments that would insinuate that I am.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Define Black, then. Define whatever side you're up on.

please.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...Why?
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Please, define the Demon White.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
I am self destructive, sorry can't help it. Soon enough I will, most likely. All the best to you, sir.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
You're really working to make me regret removing that vote, aren't you?
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Admit you are trying to equalize whites, or more easily identified as folks without skin tone. DEFINE WHITE, coward. I dare you.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...Always nice to chat with you, Max.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Rename yourself the flamer, as you are disparaging whites.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Midnight1131// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro, for obvious reasons. They were the only one that provided any, Con was clearly a troll, who provided no arguments and no rebuttals. Sources were only used by Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] Both point allocations need further reasoning. Merely saying that one side had arguments is not a basis for showing that they were more convincing, just as stating that one side had sources isn't a basis for showing that they are more reliable. The voter needs to do more than just point to a dearth on one side in order to show that they have read the debate.

Note: Contrary to the person who reported this vote, the voter does not need to have knowledge of Pro's previous debates. They are not required (nor should they be required) to have knowledge outside of the debate in question in order to vote on it.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.