The Instigator
david.palbino
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

should USA close the gound zero mosque ?

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 6 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 30769
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

david.palbino

Pro

the ground zero mosque is more than a mosque, it is a celebration of 9/11.
It should be band under hate speech law.

3 rounds
750 characters maxim
everyone is wellcome
wiploc

Con

I don't know of any reason to believe any of Pro's assertions. I do believe in freedom of religion. Closing down places of worship is unconstitutional and unamerican.
Debate Round No. 1
david.palbino

Pro


Thanks for accepting the debate.

You didn't found any reason to believe that the assertions are accurate because you didn't made any effort to search for them, just in the same way that creationist do not see any reason to think that evolution could be possible.


We agree on something, closing down places of worship because of what they are worshiping is against the constitution.

The accusation is not that a new mosque was open the accusation is that the mosque is a monument to celebrate 9/11.



I'm sure with a bit of honesty you will find a reason to link the mosque with 9/11, for instance, the mosque was suppose to open on the exact day of the 10 anniversary of the attack.

wiploc

Con

Pro has the burden of proof. He undertook to prove to us that we should close down the mosque. But what proof does he offer? He says that if I research it, I will find reason to believe. He refuses to even try to meet his burden of proof. He does not offer an argument.

And now we're at the final round. New arguments cannot be introduced in the final round.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
david.palbino

Pro


There is no need to bring more evidence, the park51 is controversial because it is a clear attempt to insult the victims and an indirectly a monument to the heroes who made the attack, every one knows that! Including the ones who pretend to don’t know it and the ones who pretend to think that all religions are equally bad, which is not the case.


Park 51 should be closed under a similar law of hate speech, if USA doesn’t have such kind of laws maybe it is time to borrow it form a European country.


If the law doesn’t work people will start using they free speech to burn Qurans and that kind of things.


For honest justice vote pro, and don’t make excuses to yourself, such: we don’t know for sure that is a celebration of the attack.


wiploc

Con

: There is no need to bring more evidence

How much evidence has he brought so far? None.

: park51 is ... a clear attempt to insult the victims

That's a claim, not a reason to believe the claim. He has no evidence.

: every one knows that!

I don't know that.

: Including the ones who pretend to don’t know it

So I'm lying? That's worth conduct points.

Pro never tried to persuade us, never gave a single reason to think he's correct. He just kept repeating his claim without defending it.

Pro had the burden of proof. He never offered proof.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
david.palbinowiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro completely failed to prove that the mosque in question is somehow a celebration of 9/11, and his other 'arguments' were horrendously bad. Grammar and Arguments to the con
Vote Placed by SANTORUM2012 4 years ago
SANTORUM2012
david.palbinowiplocTied
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: Con receives conduct point as Pro seemed a bit aggressive. Pros English was off which was very obvious. Con gets argument as Pro did not meet the BOP. Neither used sources.
Vote Placed by Majducator 4 years ago
Majducator
david.palbinowiplocTied
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: david.palbino didn't show up to the debate
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
david.palbinowiplocTied
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: Burden of proof not met. Claims without evidence. Conduct points for suggesting lies without evidence.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
david.palbinowiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet hos BoP
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
david.palbinowiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was hardly a debate. It's unconstitutional, Con pointed that out, and Pro just begged Con and the voters to "research" the mosque. That's not Con's job, nor the voters; it's Pro's BoP to show why the mosque should be shut down, and he never fulfilled it.