The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Throwback
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

ban islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Throwback
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 249 times Debate No: 95111
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

the existence of nuclear bombs prooves hate for islam is a necessary evil
Throwback

Con

Pro has made a proposition which they have not substantiated. Con holds all of Pro's argument to be false, other than the existence of nuclear bombs, which we admit to exist.

For the rest of Pro's argument, it does not follow this fact is proof of anything outside itself; It does not follow that hate for Islam is a consequence of the existence of nuclear weapons; it does not follow that hate for Islam is necessary; it does not follow that hate for Islam is evil.

I concede I cite no sources for my argument against Pro's unsubstantiated claim. Logical thinking necessarily leads to the refutation of Pro's argument, with one notable exception: The existence of nuclear bombs.

Pro's case is refuted as devoid of all logic.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i am not saying islam is a consequence of the existence of nuclear weapons..

you obviusly dont have an argument.. an opposing argument would be a contradiction
Throwback

Con

Pro presents in Round #2 the idea he wins a discussion by default when he presents an illogical set of conclusions without merit or factual basis, implying that if one cannot disprove illogical thought which has never been entertained previously, the illogical thought is proven true. Con disagrees with this reasoning.

Con has presented a sound argument to counter Pro's fallacy. There is no documentation to refute his wild assertion. This does not help his case. He may as well have stated "Diesel engines disprove joy at witchcraft is an absolute good." The whole statement is disjointed, and as such there is no refutation on topic. That in no way represents a defense of a ridiculous assertion.

Pro's statement is false, as it appears illogical on its face to the human mind, and he is unable to articulate a reason to follow the illogical.

Position of Pro is refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
why do nuclear bombs exist?
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
it is an argument, any debater sees that
Posted by Throwback 3 months ago
Throwback
I was interested in seeing your argument in defense of such a claim. I'm rather disappointed.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
cant die in a dream
Posted by Throwback 3 months ago
Throwback
Dude, you're killing me!
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
congrats on demonstrating your mental forfeit
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Anthony_Moore 3 months ago
Anthony_Moore
vi_spexThrowbackTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Good points, Pro basically did nothing
Vote Placed by Bored_Debater 3 months ago
Bored_Debater
vi_spexThrowbackTied
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: Pro makes no argument as to why there should be a ban on Islam, no rebuttal or argument from con is required due to this fact. BOP is on pro and he doesn't meet it.
Vote Placed by warren42 3 months ago
warren42
vi_spexThrowbackTied
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: Con proves Pro's position to be one big fallacy, Pro never makes a real argument, just an esoteric string of words.