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

Progressives support the far right by supporting 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 111042
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Progressives support the far right. Do you accept this challenge?


No, they don't
Debate Round No. 1



"Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist, and nativistideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.

The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, or racist views."


A)Making a distinction between your own identity group and those outside of its Moral code based on whatever the distinction is.
B)Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one's own group.
C)The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
D)A call to violence against members of other groups


You are the best nation produced as an example for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (Quran 3:110)

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. (Quran 48:29)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - fight]until they give the jizyah (penalty tax for being nonMuslim) willingly while they are humbled. (Quran 9:29)

Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve. (8:55)

7:176 compares unbelievers to panting dogs because they are idiots and of no value.

7:179 says unbelievers are like cattle.

23:55 says unbelievers are assistants of Satan.

5:60 claims that Allah transformed Jews of the into apes and swine This is confirmed by verses 7:166 and 2:65 as well.

A hadith (Bukhari 54:524) says that Muhammad believed rats to be "mutated Jews" (also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than the demons who believe in Muhammad.

The Quran says that hostility and hate will exist between Muslims and infidels forever until the infidels believe in Allah alone. (Quran 60:4)


Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf (My Struggle) by Adolph Hitler.

-Walid Shoebat, "God's War on Terror"

To this very day, Muslims do not view peace treaties in the same way that most people understand a “peace-treaty.” To the Muslim mind, treaties are not binding agreements, but rather opportunities to grow stronger or buy time or to appear peaceful while preparing for war. But make no mistake, making peace treaties with the infidels simply for the sake of peace is never the ultimate goal. The only goal of Islam is victory over the whole world.

-Walid Shoebat

Many well-meaning Dutch people have told me in all earnestness that nothing in Islamic culture incites abuse of women, that this is just a terrible misunderstanding. Men all over the world beat their women, I am constantly informed. In reality, these Westerners are the ones who misunderstand Islam. The Quaran mandates these punishments. It gives a legitimate basis for abuse, so that the perpetrators feel no shame and are not hounded by their conscience of their community. I wanted my art exhibit to make it difficult for people to look away from this problem. I wanted secular, non-Muslim people to stop kidding themselves that "Islam is peace and tolerance.

-Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Infidel"

Multiculturalism should not mean that we tolerate another culture’s intolerance. If we do in fact support diversity, women’s rights, and gay rights, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity.

-Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Heretic"

The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.

-Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Nomad"


A)Ruled by totalitarian means
Islam? Sharia Law. Check

Islam? Quran. Check.

C)Supremacist eschatology
Quran. Check.

Quran and visible culture. Check.

Quran and the Sharia. Check.


The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very good man.
-Louis Farrakhan

White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet.
-Louis Farrakhan

They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters.
-Louis Farrakhan


And interestingly enough, many prominent Democrats have not condemned him. But...they have been spotted with him.

Maxine Waters & Farrakhan pics-

Obama & Farrakhan pic-

Keith Ellison has ties to Farrakhan-

The Obama picture of his meeting with Farrakhan in 2005 was kept buried until 2018.

Juan Williams refused to condemn Farrakhan, and then stated he could excuse him because of Trump. Of course he didn't denounce Farrakhan pre-Trump, & Farrakhan has made anti-semitic remarks since before I was born.

The Liberal media refuses to denounce Farrakhan. Why? If "Hitler is a good man" is okay, what isn't?


The left has also endorsed, backed and supported Linda Sarsour. Linda Sarsour is a Muslim and the leader of the "Women's March". Ironically, Sarsour wants Sharia Law in America.



Quran and Hadith

"Why the Left won't condemn Farrakhan"



The proposition put by the Pro fails on it's face, as it is clearly to broad and all inclusive. No amount of citation of individuals or groups could possibly sustain the breadth oh the statement.

the statement is "Progressives support the far right by supporting Islam"

Not some progressives, not most progressives, "Progressives" which must mean "ALL" progressives.

This is clearly an impossible statement to sustain as there is no homogenous, mono-cultural group known as "progressives". It is an imprecise term referring to a particular set of political leanings, but does not mean some dogmatic set of tenets that must be followed.

It would be simple enough for me to simply say I am a progressive but do not support any aspect of Isam that could be considered "right wing" and the proposition is falsified.

Secondly, the term "Islam" is again extremely broad and open to interpretation. There are very liberal people who are Muslim. They would not for a moment endorse the views or tenets the Pro has detailed- are they a part of "Islam"? This would be as disputed by many other Muslims as it would be by those trying to label the entire religion as one set on interpretations and practices.

Progressives do not hold one set of views.

Islam is a diverse religion.

Right Wing is an equally imprecise and debatable term.

The Pros statement is unsustainable.
Debate Round No. 2


Con:Not some progressives, not most progressives, "Progressives" which must mean "ALL" progressives.
Not actually. Seeing tha Con wants semantics rather than to try & defend an indefensable position of the left in general, let's play semantics.
Technically, I didn't say "all Progressives". I said "Progressives".
Progressives is simply the plural of "a progressive".
According to the dictionary "plural means...
"consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than one."
So technically, according to Con's semantical logic game, I only need to show that 2 Progressives support the claim. I have easily done that.
A Muslim is someone who follows or practices Islam, a monotheisticAbrahamic religion. Muslims consider theQuran, their holy book, to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamicprophet and messenger Muhammad. The majority of Muslims also follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad (sunnah) as recorded in traditional accounts (hadith)."Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "submitter" (to God).
Con: It would be simple enough for me to simply say I am a progressive but do not support any aspect of Isam that could be considered "right wing" and the proposition is falsified.
Not necessarily. We have no proof that you are a Progressive in real life, nor do we have proof you aren't a Russian bot intending to be devisive on a debate site. I could claim to be God, Santa Clause, or the Easter Rabbit. That doesn't make it true or verifiable.
Con: Right Wing is an equally imprecise and debatable term.
I gave the definition with source, of "right wing" in the previous round.
And finally, Con rebuttled none of my claims in the last round, thus they stand.
He also had me change terms prior to the debate until he was satisfied with the terms. He then happily joined the debate, fully accepting of the definitions and of the terms.



Before the debate I asked the pro to clarify her terms, as the title was too broad to decide whether a defence was possible, or whether it was even a position I agreed with.

She refused to do so, simply giving a childish " debate me and fund out."

I have now found out, and she has indeed clarified her position the " progressives" means "some progressives".

While this is a possible interpretation, Not defining this pre- debate was quite dishonest, as it is obviously an unfaksifisble position. Why she would posit such a proposition, then expect it to be debated is ludicrous.

As she has not honestly conducted this debate, I withdraw from the argument, but request spectators either do not vote, or vote for me in response to her dishonestly.
Debate Round No. 3


After Con's second comment and objection in the comments section, I changed the title & first argument. He by his own choice then accepted the debate.

Con has chosen to do as he did in our last debate, & rather than debate a position he can not defend, he goes to semantics to try and win the debate without actually debating the topic.

That's fine if that's how he rolls, but that's a tactical mistake in this case. He chose his path of logic on his own.


Con says "far right" isn't specific.

It actually has a definition, & I provided it.

Con says "Islam" is not specific.

It actually has a definition, & I not only provided it, but also, to be Muslim, by definition, you believe in the words of the Quran, thus the words of the Quran, which are far right, by definition, mean Islam is far right by definition.

We also know that the eaxct same qualities that are chastized by the left as being "fundamentalist Christian", "Nazi", "Neo Nazi", "bigotry,"racism", etc are teachings from the Islamic Quran, of which I provided.


Con went on to use the phrase "Liberal Islam". I never mentioned "Liberal Islam". I only mentioned Islam, which has a definition that isn't liberal. We also know that Farrakhan's version of Islam is anything but "Liberal".

Per Con's logic, I don't have to prove that liberals support for "Liberal Islam" is support for the far right, but that support for "Islam" is support for the far right. I have also proven they support a Farrakhan-esque Islam that is far right.


Progressives call themselves the "Progressive Movement".


Con says, "Progressives do not hold one set of views."

It doesn't matter since he has turned it into a semantics debate. If this debate is semantics, all there has to be is two people anywhere on Earth who are Progressives and support Islam. The two Progressives could be Muslims themselves, point of fact. Con himself says there is a "Liberal Islam". That is my entire burden of proof in a semantics debate.


Here is a link to our last debate where Con tried the exact same technique rather than actually debate.


The rules say spelling is a part of the voting process. Con's last argument was so poorly written, per spelling, that it was rather hard to read.


Some progressives support the positions that some Muslims hold that some might say are right wing.

That's a silly and trivial point- it is conceded but as a topic of debate it is worthless.

If the pro is actually interested in debates, learning to frame topics in a realistic matter would help her and encourage the participation of others.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
her position is clear, question is why do you disagree with her position..
Posted by Mingodalia 3 years ago
It is clear. Debate me.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
That's the whole point. You find out what the position is before you commit to a debate, not the other way around. I may agree with you, but I have no idea if I do as you are not making your position clear.
Posted by Mingodalia 3 years ago
So debate me and find out.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Unless you make your position clear, no-one knows what debate they are actually getting into,
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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