The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlphaFSPG107
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

ban islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
AlphaFSPG107
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 91957
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

you can not fight the law.. this is a war that can only be fought by law.. laws exist to limit religion.. becomming like muslims i might as well kill myself to end them..
ban islam

what you gonna do in jail.. a lonley killer
i like to give them an option, muslim men get their nuts cut off or leave, and muslim women and children also the men must all make an argument for why to not believe in islam.. and leave islam to get to stay.

problem with slavery is submission by submission.. if they get to make arguments they all have a good reason to discuss against islam amongst themselves
ban islam.. guns dont work against the law

https://www.youtube.com...
AlphaFSPG107

Con

While it is true that the terrorists that carried out major terror strikes like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are Islamic, it is not fair to say that most Islamic people are terrorists nor is it fair to ban any religion. Laws do not exist to limit religion. The first amendment of the US Constitution reads, "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." {1}

This completely contradicts the statement that laws limit religion, as this amendment prohibits the creation of any law that limits religion. The laws in America must uphold the freedom to practice any religion.

Moving on, when all of the terror attacks, small or large, since 1980 in the US worldwide are compiled, according to the FBI (information via a Huffington Post article) 94% are committed by non-Islamic people. Furthermore, there have been about 140,000 terrorist attacks of all sized worldwide since 1970. According to the same article, less than 2% were committed by Muslims. Even if they were all committed by Muslims, this would represent about 0.00009% of the Muslim population. When focusing on just the USA, "A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims." (Alnatour) So what you are suggesting is to violate the US Constitution and cruelly punish the 99.9998% of Muslims who haven't killed any Americans because of the 0.0002% that have. {2}

While what that video displayed is a horrible act and Muslims have admittedly been responsible for terrible things like 9/11, they are few and far between and nowhere close to justification for the banning of Islam and the actions you are suggesting.

{1} https://www.law.cornell.edu...
{2} http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

religion=to rely on=mental emotion

what muslims do is irrelevant to the necessery ban of islam..
AlphaFSPG107

Con

Actually...what Muslims do is quite relevant as a Muslim is someone who practices the religion of Islam. You are suggesting that we ban a religion, which is completely contradictory to what the US Constitution states. The reason I brought up Islamic involvement in terrorism is because that is the only viable reason people argue that we should ban Islam. I simply proved that to ban Islam due to the extremely low percentile that actually are involved would be extremely illogical and would be to completely ignore the roots and infrastructure of our legal system. I disproved the stereotype that Muslims are the main source of terrorism to prove that by this logic we should ban all religion; which brings me back to the original point that to ban any religion would push us towards an oppressive state and would oppose the Constitution; which also discredits the claim that laws are made to limit religion.
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
wrong alpha.. a murderer is a murderer..
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
So. like any "real" muslim you want shariah in the US ?
Posted by lightseeker 6 months ago
lightseeker
or rather, Tehran people.
Posted by lightseeker 6 months ago
lightseeker
this article has no factual basis my friend. a child is sentenced to that punishment for stealing bread in Iran???? I live in Iran and i tell you, according to Islam, children are not responsible for their crimes, because crime is happened when you understand law completely and then you break it willingly. therefor children under 15 are never sentenced. as for stoning or lashing, Islam has severe punishments about some of the crimes, like when a married man or woman, publicly having affairs with another man or woman other than their wife or husband. this will result in stoning. and the reason for that is to protect the foundation of family. and this sentence only is carried out when 4 trustworthy people can testify that incident separately with detail. and what is happening is Saudi Arabia (which they cut off people's heads in the streets for things like talking out) should not be seen as Islamic culture. because neither Sunnis nor Shias accept their puppet government to be real Muslims.
Quote from the article: " Women who live under Sharia law are not much more than a possession, bound and hidden behind a head to toe mask."
seriously? just search Tehran in google image.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
That could make co-existence even harder. But with islam we would have to co-exist with shariah.
http://nowtheendbegins.com...
Posted by lightseeker 6 months ago
lightseeker
what if they were terrorists who were trained by US to make a justification for starting a war? and how can you accept what they say after all the lies they've been telling you? "Afghanese terrorists attacked us, so we have to retaliate", after attacking Afghanistan and trashing it (strangely, after their occupation of Afghanistan, opium production grew 40 times in that country) they said, "oops, we made a mistake, the real enemy is Iraq| and attacked there to destroy their weapons of mass destruction (which they lied about that too and couldn't find any)" .after all, a big part of US economy is based on selling weaponry and because of that there should be a permanent state of war in the world for US to be happy .
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
So the main ? is if co-existence is possible in the future.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
Not if there were no terrorists...?
Posted by lightseeker 6 months ago
lightseeker
You guys still think that a bunch of afhganese terrorists could hijack two planes and crash it into buildings in the middle if Manhattan?
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
@ vict0rian. If co-existence is not an option. Then what are the options ?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hanate333 6 months ago
Hanate333
vi_spexAlphaFSPG107Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I couldn't even understand Pro's points.