The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cenc
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Ban islam

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...
Cenc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 109735
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Cenc

Con

Accepted.

Resolution: 'Ban Islam'

==========================================================

Pro has to present sound arguments with citations, that show us why it would be preferable to ban Islam than allow it to remain in practice as a religion. Pro has yet to define what he means by 'ban Islam', and tell us where/how he would like it to be banned.

1.] Would he like it to be banned only in the U.S?

2.] How would he suggest such a ban is enforced? I.e, how could a government which has it in its constitution to protect freedom of religion, possibly approach banning one?

So far, Pro has only vaguely linked a YouTube video - without indicating what the content of the video is or supporting it with an argument. Thus, he has failed to show us why Islam should be banned.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

truth speaks for itself
Cenc

Con

As I expected, Pro has again failed to explain his resolution and provide any arguments in support of it.

In addition, he failed to respond to my own points/questions.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by COCOApanda 2 years ago
COCOApanda
I can guarantee that Pro knows nothing about Islam, and he is just a loser in life.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DeepInThought// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro only showed a video that was about free speech, and had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would have skipped over the convincing arguments, because of my personal beliefs support con, making me biased, but Pro didn't give an argument in support of the topic, therefore I believe that it would be unfair to not to give Con the most convincing arguments points. Spelling and Grammar, goes to Con, because Pro only had one sentence that had neither capitalization, or a period. I would have given most reliable sources to Pro, being as he was the only one with a source, how ever, that source, (although well spoke) had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Therefore, all points, with the exception of conduct, and sources, go to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both sides. While the voter does this for Pro, granting Con arguments on the basis that Pro didn"t give an argument is insufficient explanation. Either the voter can assess Con"s argument, or can explain why Pro carries and did not fulfill his burden of proof. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless the argument in question is written in such a way that it is difficult to understand, the voter cannot award this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Arganger// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to actually try to refute Con. Con made a very real argument on the other hand.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both sides. Stating that Pro failed to refute Con can be part of an RFD, but the voter must assess the arguments Pro actually presents. Similarly, the voter must assess what is a "real argument" coming from Con, and examine how it negates the resolution.
************************************************************************
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
my case is simple, muslims are forced terrorists therfore they should be banned from our countries so they can convert and safely
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
you tell me
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
WOLF.J
well perhaps it is in fact, your mind that is too simple, bro!
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
its to simple for my mind not to comprehend it at point blank
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
lol
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
WOLF.J
but studying islam properly, not relying on youtube n the internets cheap sites, then u will see that its actually not that bad in relation to the propaganda you muppets believe in.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
how else will people know they need to ban islam
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Arganger 2 years ago
Arganger
AnonymousCencTied
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: Pro only posted a YouTube video in the first round, failing to make any of his own claims. The YouTube video was about free speech, not banning Islam. Con made two points asking about how it could be enforced and the reach of a ban, of which pro didn't respond. Rather he only said, "truth speaks for itself" and either it doesn't or he is wrong as that seems to add nothing to the debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.