The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SampleDebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

muslims will fight the demons they raise themselves..

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 95286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

dreams are as good as nightmares are real.. noses of vengeful wolves

ban islam
SampleDebater

Con

(I do not understand most of my opponents statement, the only part of his argument that I can discern is "ban islam", so I shall rebut that)

Banning Islam is a vile idea that should not be even taken into consideration by modern day governments due to numerous moral/political reasons.
Firstly, the 1800's and early 1900's considered times of injustice for black persons living around the world. In South Africa partied was active, and In the U.S Racial segregation was in place. And when we look back on it as a society we all say in unison it is wrong. Yet we are trying to re-create a form of extreme religious segregation with Islam which fundamentally has the same structure as racial filing. This will cause havoc among nations that implement this religious segregention. Islam is one of the largest religions with over 1.6 billion religious followers nations will experience a major uprise. This may even cause a collapse of a nation which leads to my second argument.

Secondly, banning Islam in such a time is a terrible decision since it can lead to a civil uprising and major opposition from Middle Eastern nations which are well known for being Islam based. This may spark a war between both the Western Nations and the Middle Eastern nations.

Finally, modern day Islamic terrorism was created predominantly by the U.S and the UK. For example, both the U.S and the U.K funded the training for an organization to help fight a Russian-supported government from Afganistan, that organization turned against the U.S after conceiving victory and turned into the notoriously known Taliban, the group that most people fear, and have turned into Islamaphobics due to it. Nations can't blame a religious group for organizations that they created and funded. It's un-ethical and immoral.

This concludes my argument, of Islam, should not be banned. This religious feeling.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

ban islam
SampleDebater

Con

My opponent seems to be basing his argument purely on s/he's personal opinion."Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes." R13; George Carlin . This quote by George Calin perfectly summarises my point of view and my rebuttal for my opponent.

My previous argument still stands, awaiting rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

open a wup on islam non ban
SampleDebater

Con

My arguments stand, and I would like to conclude that we live in a accepting society which may turn into a society that always thinks about hatred society may change if a anti-islam ban comes into act. I thank you for reading this debate and vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Trombonist// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters were very respectful, so it was a tie for conduct. Con had better spelling and grammar as Pro never once used any sort of capitalization. Con clearly had more convincing arguments as they seemed to put time and effort into what they were saying, while Pro simply repeated "ban islam." or some other variation. Nobody used any sources, so that was a tie as well.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide reasoning for why the writing in question impaired their understanding of the arguments given. A lack of capitalization is likely not going to meet that threshold. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. While the voter does so for Pro, the voter is nonetheless required to also assess Con's points and not just state their general impressions.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
no arguments can exist for islam.. sry for you that you joined
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
sure, is not
Posted by canis 2 months ago
canis
Great...Was fun...
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
does it for me
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
is not
Posted by canis 2 months ago
canis
can is + a bit of Lupus = wolf.
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
so tell me, what brain damage is it
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
is not
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
vi_spex
can is
No votes have been placed for this debate.