terrorism of non muslims
Debate Rounds (3)
I have some confusion about what this debate is about. Are you arguing that terrorism is moral if you are being forced to do it (if you don't do it the terrorist will murder you)? Are you talking about committing terrorist acts or supporting terrorists? Are you advocating for a ban of Islam? Could you clear this topic up a little? It does seem like a very interesting debate topic.
In terms of definitions I will assume we are using the conventional meaning of terrorism, morality, and Islam.
Terrorism (Merriam Webster dictionary): "the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion."
Moral (Merriam Webster): "conforming to a standard of right behavior."
Islam (same source): "the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet."
I will be arguing that terrorism is NOT moral even if one is being threatened to do it. If you wish I can argue that Islam should not be banned.
yes, muslims are moral no matter what they do.. becuase allah is the spirit of terrror.. death fear, the threat of pain or death by islam, as their laws or punishment, essentially altering human nature or morality.. and people dont care, they let the victims of islam rule, be honor killed and not have a chance to leave islam
islam is red glowing racism and terrorism.. the most pure form of hatred against humanity that can possibly exist.. it can not be imagined to be worse
so you would let yourself be tortured and killed, instead of doing the terror, honorable.. but not necessary according to morality or survival, as the lack of existence of survival negates pain and death.. and thus morality
bit fast explanation but simple
"there is not much to discuss, my argument is simply true.. so undefeatable"
Over the course of this debate I am confident your argument will be defeated.
"becuase allah is the spirit of terrror.. death fear, the threat of pain or death by islam, as their laws or punishment, essentially altering human nature or morality.."
"islam is red glowing racism and terrorism.. the most pure form of hatred against humanity that can possibly exist.. it can not be imagined to be worse"
You have made some extreme generalizations about Islam without any evidence. According to Pew Research there are 1.6 billion muslims in the world. You believe all of them practice a religion of pure hatred? The majority of muslims are against terrorism and are certainly not religious extremists. Most of those who believe in Islam are normal people. Pew says: "Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably."
Also: "In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country..."
There are numerous quotes from the Quran promoting peace such as:
"There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned." (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) (from good news network). I can provide more if you like since there are countless morally correct quotes found in the religious book of Islam. I am not saying that all muslims are peaceful, but I have successfully countered your assertions that Islam is completely evil.
You said: "so you would let yourself be tortured and killed, instead of doing the terror, honorable.. but not necessary according to morality or survival, as the lack of existence of survival negates pain and death.. and thus morality"
I may be referencing what you said in this quote during my own arguments.
Argument 1: The terrorist is dishonest.
If a terrorist is forcing you to do an act of terrorism under threat of torture or murder then you can reasonably conclude the terrorist is either evil or insane. At the very least you know the terrorist doesn"t follow what we would consider a good moral code. If the terrorist is evil then the terrorist cannot be trusted. This is because most terrorists have no problem with lying to their victims. How do you know the terrorist won"t force you to murder someone and then kill you afterwards. The most likely scenario is you doing the act of terror and the terrorist killing you afterwards. Essentially you would kill an innocent person (or multiple innocent people) for nothing.
Argument 2: Acts of terrorism are not moral.
Acts of terrorism are horrific and can cause the deaths of countless innocent civilians. Take the examples of 911, Paris, Nice, and Orlando. Look at the evil that ISIL is doing. When you are murdering innocent people or doing other evil acts of terror you are behaving opposite to any reasonable moral code. You are being immoral by doing so.
Argument 3: You cannot go along with the terrorist
By going along with the terrorist you are going to embolden the terrorist to commit more acts of terror. After their success with you they will feel confident to keep doing evil. The only moral option is to say no and to fight back. If you fight back you have the chance of eliminating the terrorist and not only saving your own life but saving the lives of people in the future. Instead of letting the terrorist continue to do evil you can get rid of them and stop them from doing terrorism ever again.
For these reasons I have demonstrated how doing terrorism at the command of the terrorist is immoral. Also fighting back is the right thing to do and even if you are killed you have still done morally just behavior. Being killed doesn"t take away from the correct moral choice you would have made.
islam is pure hatred.. thats all, where ever it goes, it is
the "radical" muslim will stab your wifes genitles, the "non radical" will laugh in the corner or do nothing.. welcome your insanity
laws exist to limit religion.. the muslims we see doing good in society today are all because of the law.. as a direct opposition to the laws of islam, and as the chains on a god of monsters
its funny, your terrorism is as predictable as a muslim.. i have to exlpain the same obvius points every time i speak with people like you, welcoming your extinction with open arms
1.. its in the koran that muslims should lie to disbeliever for islam..
2. moron, read round 1
3. you are a terrorist, read round 1
confidence, you had confidence.. are you a muslim?
"no extreme and no generalization... one can predict the last muslim from the first, easily"
As I mentioned before there are around 1.6 billion muslims and the religion is not monolithic. As previously mentioned the Quran (the most important muslim book) has many quotes that encourage good moral behavior. Statistics show the majority of muslims are not extremists.
"islam is pure hatred.. thats all, where ever it goes, it is"
Obviously wrong because of my aforementioned arguments.
". its in the koran that muslims should lie to disbeliever for islam.."
I can easily turn this assertion to help my case. Let"s assume the terrorist believes in an extremist, radical version of Islam. Let"s assume you don"t believe in Islam. Then wouldn't this mean the terrorist will lie to you about sparing your life? In order words even if you comply with committing terrorism the terrorist is still going to kill you afterwards.
"moron, read round 1"
I did read round 1 and it was VERY unclear to what you were saying. That was why I wanted you to clarify. Additionally, don"t throw stones from a glass house. Also you need to improve your spelling because it can be hard to read what you are writing. I should win the points for conduct.
"you are a terrorist, read round 1"
I am not a terrorist and you are being immature.
"confidence, you had confidence.. are you a muslim?"
No, I am not a muslim.
My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. Voters can extend all my arguments from the previous round because they are left completely unanswered. Instead of using logic or facts my opponent has used wild generalizations, fear mongering, and even personal attacks. Moreover, my opponent"s lack of clarity makes it hard to even understand what he/she is trying to argue.
I urge a strong vote for CON. Thank you for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Some_Confused_Kid 3 days ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was polite to pro but pro called con a moron,and a terrorist.Pro forgot to capitalize a lot while con barely made any spelling mistake.Con made a good reason while defining terroism and was able to refute Pros argument good while Pro made baseless arguments that are calling people who practice Islam to be bad people.Con put up his sources while Pro did not.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.