The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missmozart
Con (against)
Winning
20 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...
missmozart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 227 times Debate No: 92625
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

missmozart

Con

First, I would like to make the facts clear for everybody reading:

1. The motion of this debate is 'This house would ban Islam'.

2. Pro's 'argument' consists only of a YouTube link of a random man (not even an official news reporter) discussing the case of a woman who was raped by Muslims.

Definitions:
Ban- to officially or legally prohibit something [1]
Islam- a monotheistic religion founded by Muhammad and based on the teachings of the Qur'an [2]
Muslim- an adherent of Islam [2]

We now begin.

Since Pro has not provided a proper argument for me to refute, I am going to assume that Pro believes Islam should be banned because of the rape described in the video. I'm going to make this point brief as it seems really obvious to be quite honest. Just because one member of an ethnicity, religion or whatever, carries out an immoral act does not mean that we should stereotype the whole group as being the same. For example, if a black man steals something (no offence intended), it does not mean that all black people are immoral beings and steal things. Similarly, just because a group of men who happened to be Muslims raped a woman and tortured her (which we can all agree was horrendous), it DOES NOT imply that all Muslims are rapists or that Islam is a bad religion and should therefore be banned.

Islam, like all religions teaches excellent morals, such as being kind to one another and to have respect [3]. So what really makes a person a Muslim or a Christian? In Ireland for example, the main religion is Christianity and although most of the people were baptised at birth, a lot of them are atheists and do not believe in God or take the Bible seriously. Therefore, the definition of a Muslim or Christian can be controversial. Secondly, I hate to mention this but let's take the Holocaust as an example. Over 70% of the German population are Roman Catholics (ie. Christianity) [4]. But as you know, during that period of time, over 6 million Jews were murdered. So clearly, Christianity should really be banned judging by your theory- after all, the Holocaust has proved that Christianity is ten times worse than Islam.

Finally, the majority of recent terrorism (excluding the Paris attacks of course) were due to political reasons and not religious reasons as many believe [5].

In conclusion, I think it would be absolutely absurd to ban a religion such as Islam for no good reason. I'm not sure about you but I know a lot of Muslims and they are all in fact, very kind and honest people. Within a group, there will always be the good and bad, no matter what.

Thank you for reading. Vote Con!

Citations:
[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.questionsaboutislam.com...
[4] https://www.internations.org...
[5] http://handofreason.com...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bearski 6 months ago
bearski
vi_spexmissmozartTied
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: The basis of Pro's argument is because a woman was allegedly raped Islam should be banned. But then offers no support for the position. The position can be attacked on multiple grounds and Con does so well and cites sources in support
Vote Placed by parkerwil 6 months ago
parkerwil
vi_spexmissmozartTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con gets conduct since Pro used a video. Con had spelling and grammar since he is the only one to argue. Con had more sources which were much more reliable than a youtube video. Although I agree with Pro, all points to go con.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 6 months ago
ThinkBig
vi_spexmissmozartTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con gets the conduct point as pro's only argument was a video. Arguments: Con rebuts the video by showing that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. Con also points out that Islam encourages peace and ethics. Sources: Con was the only person to use sources and his sources and his sources were more reliable than a YouTube video. Pro: Stop trolling!!!