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

ban islam

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: 10/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 199 times Debate No: 96045
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




you dont stop a rat infestation by beating the rats.. ban islam


Resolution: Ban Islam

In order to uphold the BoP, my opponent must provide argumentation for why it is the case that Islam ought to be banned.Voters, please be aware of equivocation, I suspect pro will attempt to equivocate radicalized interpretations of Islam with Islam itself. I will demonstrate the distinction between the two, and why Islam itself should not be banned. Furthermore, I can't imagine any constitutional mechanism through which a religion can be banned.

As Pro has not provided any argumentation in his first round, I shall take it that the first round is relegated to acceptance. I thank pro for posing such an interesting and important resolution, and eagerly await his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


muslims follow the koran.. terrorism


I'm going to go ahead and give pro another chance at this before I put forth any serious argumentation. While it is true that Muslims follow the Quran, pro has not established how this constitutes terrorism. I remind voters that the BoP is on pro to demonstrate why Islam should be banned. All pro has done thus far is establish that Muslims follow the Quran, which is a truism, however this claim is not particularly substantive without analyzing the Quran, and he has put forth an ad absurdum that the Islam is essentially terrorism, however he has provided no argumentation nor any sources for these assertions. I ask pro to formulate a substantive and cogent argument and to provide credbility for the argument with sources.
Debate Round No. 2


islam argues against its own existence.. no good arguments can exist for islam


I hope it is clear to voters that pro has demonstrably failed in fulfilling the BoP. He claims that Islam is self defeating, yet has provided no substantiation of this claim. However, even if Islam is self defeating, this in no way merits a ban.

Let's look at the five pillars of Islam:
1. Declaration of faith
2. Prayer
3. Charitably
4. Fasting
5. Pilgrimage

I see nothing inherently immoral with the foundations of Islam. Charitably is quite moral, as it is the case that being charitable increases well being for all involved parties. Furthermore, fasting generates empathy, and empathy leads one to live a better life.
Remember the resolution"Ban Islam". Pro has failed to provide any cogent argumentation for this claim.
He has claimed that Islam is terrorism, a claim that he has not substantiated.
He has stated that Islam is self defeating, which is a red herring, because he has not demonstrated that things that are false should be banned. He furthermore attempts to shift the BoP by stating "no good arguments can exist for Islam", it is not my job to provide arguments for Islam, it is merely my job to negate Pros claims. It is his job to provide argumentation against Islam, which he has not done, and he has especially not demonstrated that it should be banned. Furthermore, if we look at the five pillars of Islam, the foundations upon which the faith is built, we observe no inherent immorality, quite the contrary we observe good things such as empathy and charitably.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by xvyz 6 days ago
@whiteflame I am requesting that you vote on this debate if time permits given that you removed both votes.
Posted by whiteflame 6 days ago
If I voted on every single debate where I'd removed a vote, this would consume several hours of my time every night, which I do not have. I don't make a point of doing it for that reason, though if someone requests it, I'll usually take the time.
Posted by xvyz 1 week ago
really -_- @whiteflame
If you're going to remove votes, can you at least vote on it. Otherwise this act of moderation is very non constructive.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
>Reported vote: FurryDragon// Mod action: Removed<

3 point to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con made more convincing arguments, and refuted pro side arguments. Con wins

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both debaters, particularly if they feel that one side managed to refute all of the arguments of the other. It should also be clear why Con's case warrants him the win, not just that he was successful in building it up.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
>Reported vote: Theguy1789// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't even give a case,

[*Reason for removal*] Accurate as the statement may be (and the voter has to actually justify it), the voter is required to assess arguments made by both sides or to explain why Pro had the BoP, meaning that his failure to present a case suffices as a reason to vote against him.
Posted by FiliusExNihil 1 week ago
"stop thinking" The one command everyone seems to follow!
Posted by vi_spex 1 week ago
stop thinking
Posted by domfincrag 1 week ago
I think Vi_spex is either a troll or a five year old.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 6 days ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's "case" is a set of three assertions, none of which are substantiated, all of which are missing basic links and impact analysis, and none of which clearly link to the resolution. Characterizing Muslims as "rats" is reason enough to award Con conduct - that's a pretty blatant insult to all Muslims. The link to terrorism is nonexistent, and the self-defeating argument is an entirely empty assertion. Con doesn't really have to do anything, since it's Pro's burden to show that Islam should be banned from... somewhere... it's honestly not clear. As Pro, he had to develop a case that clearly explained how, why, and where Islam should be banned, and he failed to do that. Con points out the missing links and impacts, and provides at least some characterization of what Muslims believe and why that implies that Islam should not be banned, though at this point, that's not required. I vote Con.