The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Ban islam

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 109876
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)



Ban islam=Kill islam=free all muslims


Preserve the freedom of religion and belief from government tyranny. Keep politicians out of church matters and the private beliefs of people in their homes.
Debate Round No. 1


as if religion is necessarily good.. you can make anything a religion

civil laws exist to limit religion


Civil Law limits religious interference with government but it also limits government interference in religion. At numerous times in history it has been proven that the government has always abused its power when it has decided which religions are good and which ones are "bad" and should be persecuted. In fact our country was founded by people the English Government decided were from "bad" religions. Banning Islam is government tyranny and if they ban Islam who knows what the government in power in the future will ban next?

I'd like to end with some quotes from some of our founders on this topic:
"Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance."
~James Madison

"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind."
~Samuel Adams

"[he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion."
John Locke, Copied by Thomas Jefferson

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
-1st Amendment
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
A mistake was made, and the following reason for non-removal was acted upon as a reason for removal. That was my error. FREEDO, you are welcome to re-post your vote at any time.

>Reported vote: FREEDO// Mod action: NOTRemoved<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con?s argument that a ban on Islam would be tyranny is a superior argument. Pro made virtually no argument.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is required to either assess specific points presented by both sides or explain how one side failed to meet their BoP along with analysis of their arguments. The voter opts to do the former, and does so sufficiently. In instances like this where one side does not clearly provide an argument to support their position, the threshold for specific analysis is lower.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
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 has no offense. Con explains why this is a violation of the freedom of religion; Pro's response, that civil law limits religion, isn't sufficient because (a) as Con explains, civil law also limits government interference in religion, and (b) Pro needs to explain what the harms of a religion are in order to "ban" the practice of it, so I default to Con because of the freedom of choice.

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