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

supporting islam is terrorism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/6/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 196 times Debate No: 96756
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

over 1400 years islam ruled europe, it is estimated that under that time about a hundred and ten million europeans were killed.. what happend to those people?

islam is like a flawed structure about to come down on its own, support it and be shooting range materiale by choice
Capitalistslave

Con

I do not believe supporting Islam is terrorism. I wish to point out that first, I'm opposed to religion in general so I'm actually opposed to Islam, however saying that someone who supports it is supporting terrorism is wrong.

The actual tenets of Islam do not condone acts of terror or violence. While, yes, the Qu'ran has violent scripture in it, this does not mean the religion today supports violence. A majority of Muslims have not ever done a violent act and do not condone acts of violence or terrorism. Most Muslims, just like most Christians, do not actually follow every word of their holy book. The Bible too has many scriptures that incite violence, but majority of Christians do not act violently.

In addition, it should be noted that terrorism is defined as "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... )
Supporting Islam, is not, in itself, a violent or intimidating act. Nor does it mean someone who supports Islam condones terrorism.

So, while I would say supporting Islam is a foolish idea because religion is hierarchical and we should get rid of all hierarchy to be truly free, I argue that it is not terrorism to support Islam.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

islam cant exist on its own in the age of intelligence, it will deteriorate without support

islam is the most pure form of hatred against humans.. religions is war by disbelief, islam is the worst form of religion that can possibly exist.. full blown terrorism, wherever it goes and exists, besides the limitation of law
Capitalistslave

Con

I don't disagree that Islam will probably deteriorate at some point, but that still doesn't mean supporting it is terrorism. It seems you don't really have any solid claims, because all you do is claim without any sort of logic or evidence to it.

For example you said "islam is the most pure form of hatred against humans", how so? You don't even explain yourself on that and you expect us to believe you.

I don't think there's a need for me to say anything more at this point since you really didn't do a good job of proving that supporting Islam is terrorism.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 weeks ago
vi_spex
argumentum ad populum
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Overnight// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied, both didn't cross any boundaries. S/G goes to Con, since Pro's was so bad. Con was fine with S/G. Arguments go to Con also, since he was the only won able to back up his claims, rather than making vague statements (as Pro did.) Con said that there is violence in other religions, but that doesn't mean everyone is terrorist. Sources to Con since he was the only one who used any.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to give specifics regarding S&G problems in the debate, and it should be clear that one side's writing was bad enough that it was difficult to understand, otherwise this may not be awarded. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides, yet only covers Pro with generalities. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side provided them, the voter is required to show that they are reliable (i.e. relevant) if they want to award these points.
***********************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
facts argue for themselves.. like words of the koran dosnt change.. thanks for the easy win
No votes have been placed for this debate.