Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 month ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.