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

is Trump is correct in banning Muslims? and should he ban other minorities next?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 99874
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Let's make this quick.
Yes trump is doing America a favour.
Have you even been to Muslim land? It's one giant ghetto.
They can't even feed their cows properly cus the ground full of s.h.i.t and mud, no grass.
They are sexist vs their women and beat them. Their women is the only thing they got under control cus their children are festering around white neighbourhoods pressing their elongated noses against our windows, wishing they had some form of societal standard like we do.
They can make a time bomb, but they can't make an effort to wash their f**king hands.
And don't even get me started on them blacks.

And then there is Obama he a hybrid, black muslim, God damn so filthy. Makes me wanna cry.

I look forward to a good civil debate.


Thank you for this opportunity at a "civil debate"

If you are referring to the ban on immigrants and refugees from several majority-Muslim countries, which the White House denies being a Muslim ban, I believe it's wrong. But if you are referring to the president's tenancies towards far-right sentiment in terms of immigration policy, I will argue on the point of why banning a religion and/or minorities are wrong. I will, for the sake of the audience as well as you, order my points and counter points from now on, and try to keep it simple and easy to read. Thank you for your understanding.

1. First off, the most apparent flaw with banning minorities/religious groups, as the title suggests, is that it contradicts the 1st Amendment, in which it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." When Congress is used, it is referring to all government, as the founding fathers did not image a president with as much control as modern ones have.

2. According to Lindsey Graham(R-SC) and John McCain(R-AZ,) the executive order will become a "self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism" (via Vox) Americans are currently fighting on the front lines against ISIS, training and teaching Iraqi soldiers (same report.) Damaging such relations is horrible for American interests.

3. Even FOX news agrees that labeling a religion of 1.6 billion people for the acts of (maybe) a few hundred thousand is doesn't work. Vox, and many others, say that it gives ISIS propaganda, portraying the "West" as against this religion.

4. You probably haven't seen any Muslim countries yourself, but I can assure you that many are moderate and rich, such as the UAE, therefore are not "Dirty"

I will try to phrase this next part as nice as possible, but after some research, it appears that you have a history of trolling, such as saying that Hitler did nothing wrong, so please, let's use this site as it was meant to be used
Debate Round No. 1


Allow me to start my argument with a source, let this be your introduction to Islam and the Muslim faith:
This source is an email from a woman who dated a Muslim and is a very interesting read.

Islam is a manipulating and fear based faith. If you try to leave you will be killed, not by ISIS, but by ordinary Muslims.
Becoming a Muslim is called "The point of no return."

Could we really allow people who are admittedly willing to kill their own, into our country?
These people and their religion have given birth to the terror groups of today, there is no denying this.

I don't want a group of potential American hating religious fanatics in my country. They cant even treat their women correctly. They force them to dress in black sheets which is a form of oppression. If they are willingl to do this to their own women, what do you think they will do to us? -Source on Muslim women's oppression.

The amendments have been amended.

You don't seem to understand that the amendments are changes to the constitution. We call these "Constitutional amendments."
The point is, they've been changed before and are not set in stone, so why do they even hold any legitimacy? They don't. Amendments can be manipulated, so are therefore open to future change.
Do you think the founding fathers would want their constitution changed?

Picture this: You're in an Arid wasteland, where your ghetto city lay unchanged for 100s of years. You can't afford toilet paper, to wipe your a.s.s, there is no vegetation either. So how do you wipe your a.s.s? WITH YOUR HAND!

Muslims use their left hand to wipe their butts, their right hand for eating and shaking hands with other Muslims.
Dirty and violent.


I only have 2000 characters, so I'll start:
1. Islam, contrary to popular belief, does not promote honor killings. To quote the Quran itself, "You shall not kill your children for fear of want"To kill them is a grievous sin." If you want a good read, I suggest using a fact checking website before believing anything that suits you, as the source you cited came up as promoting both conspiracies and far right sources. To quote a more centrist source, Time, "Today, global mainstream Islamic leaders continue to publicly condemn these vigilante misogynistic homicides done beneath the faith's banner." It is also important to note that Honor Based Violence (HBV) occurs throughout the world and is not limited to fundamentalist communities of Islam.
2. I already argued against honor killings, as they are against the true beliefs of Islam as written in the Quran itself.
3. Not all muslims support honor killings, as already stated, it only occurs in radical groups- only about 20 happen per year in the USA, with a population of over 3.3 million muslims. (Fox) Read this:
4. While it is sad that many muslim women are forced to wear the veil, many others wish to wear it. It is a problem in the middle east, but they aren't forced to wear it in the US (source: Muslim friends)
5. If we repeal the first amendment, we repeal the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petitioning as well as the freedom to believe in whatever you want, whether that is the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other religion.
6.Your whole last point is committing the logical fallacy (a fallacy is a mistaken belief based on unsound arguments) of Appeal to Emotion, which is "manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid response" Use this poster so that you don't make that mistake again.
See my comment for the rest of my sources
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
Vote by madness, 5 points to Pro (Args, Sources), RFD: "Pro is clearly a racist, but I will not let this turn me bias towards this debate. Argument: Pro uses simple logic to push his claim, quoted- "Could we really allow people who are admittedly willing to kill their own, into our country?" -Pro also spoke of how Muslims treat their women and made a logic statement essentially saying- if they treat their women like that, how will they treat us? Pro had a good counter argument to the amendments. Con made a claim that Islam doesn't promote honour killings. There was no argument or source to support this claim, only a quote, which could have been cherry picked by a book vast in size. Sources: Con made many claims, backed by only quotes, no sources to support his claims. His amendment claim was unsupported with no sources. The only place where Pro failed to provide a source was in the amendments argument. S+G was ok Conduct: Pro was racist, but showed no hate towards his opponent, therefore I couldn't justify giving away points on cond"

This vote has been disqualified and removed.

Madness and Masterful are encouraged to contact me regarding this removal.

Airmax1227 Moderator
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
That's how it's done.
Posted by R_Jacob_Percival_M 1 year ago
Also Masterful said "Have you even been to Muslim land? It's one giant ghetto." I was correcting them on that point.
Posted by R_Jacob_Percival_M 1 year ago
I am sorry if my comment came off as passive-aggressive, but I interpreted his stance as not knowing muslim countries based on his comment, "They can make a time bomb, but they can't make an effort to wash their f**king hands.
And don't even get me started on them blacks.

And then there is Obama he a hybrid, black muslim, God damn so filthy. Makes me wanna cry."
Posted by madness 1 year ago
I was going to give conduct to Pro because Con made a statement
"You probably haven't seen any Muslim countries yourself"

This could have been interpreted as an attack, maybe suggesting he doesn't get out much. It felt passive aggressive.
However, Pro didn't mention this, therefore I assume he wasn't offended by it.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
If people actually knew how to vote. I'd only lose on conduct.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: subdeo// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Masterful loses the point for better conduct due to his excessive use of bad words. Counting spelling errors, he also has more of these. Con made actual arguments, and more of them. However, Pro uses more and better sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply compare the number of spelling errors made " they must show that one side"s arguments are more difficult to understand. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Awarding points based on using more arguments is not sufficient " their quality must be assessed as well. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide some specific assessment here as well and, once again, having more sources is not sufficient explanation.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
You shouldn't penalize me for my use of English spelling and not the American version.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Yes Cosmo. And you have a long history of debates where you have failed to properly read your opponents arguments. In fact, past experiences debating with you is the reason why I added a character limit.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
"To make it easier for the reader"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 1 year 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: Conduct to com because of pros clear trolling and cluttered the argument with vile racism to try and get a rise out of people. Argument goes to com because he articulated what the ban is correctly, and noted some concerns about how it could do more harm than good against terrorism.