ban islam
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 9/3/2016 | Category: | Religion | ||
Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 874 times | Debate No: | 95179 |
muslim=sleep walking coma patient having bad dreams of evil humans
I accept this debate from my opponent and look forward to an intellectual argument from them. The title of the debate is "ban islam". Pro"s only argument, ostensibly defending a position that banning Islam is proper, consists of the following unsourced definition of muslims: "muslim =sleep walking coma patient having bad dreams of evil humans". Con argues that this is not a definition of muslim which can stand scrutiny. Muslim is defined as follows: Adjective: of or relating to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam. 2. Noun: an adherent of Islam. (1) A person whose religion is Islam : a follower of Islam (2) Noun: follower of the religion of Islam. Adjective: relating to the Muslims or their religion. (3) All three definitions above show a commonality of meaning. None of them include anything remotely resembling the definition provided by Pro. If Pro"s reason for banning Islam is based on this defective definition, it is not a reason at all for banning Islam. Con position: Islam Should Not Be Banned Banning the beliefs held by others is not only oppressive, but it is ineffective. There have been numerous beliefs which have been held by others to be either erroneous, offensive, or violent. No attempt to ban any belief has ever succeeded. Con also argues that Islam not only cannot be banned, but should be allowed. If a belief is held to be erroneous, there is much more success to be had in persuasion rather than coercion. Any success in using force to change beliefs is only superficial success, and often leads to bloodshed on both sides. Islam should not be banned. 1. http://www.dictionary.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... |
![]() |
laws exist to limit religion.. cannibals are not allowed
ban islam.. obviusly Pro’s round #2 argument seems to center on 2 unfounded premises: 1st, that the purpose of laws is to limit religion. There are many philosophical explanations for the existence of laws, from which it is clear their purpose is not to limit religion, but to protect the minority (even muslims) from the majority, not encode the mistreatment of those who disagree with us. (1)(2) In fact, religious freedom is expressly protected in the United States Constitution, in the what became the first amendment to the Constitution. (3). Pro argues that cannibalism not being legal is evidence of his proposition. I argue this is not the prohibition of or limiting of any religion. It is the banning of eating of human flesh. 2nd, Pro seems to assert that from this it logically follows that we must ban Islam. It does not. There is no basis for claiming any such conclusion from the premise Pro proposed. Pro’s argument does not hold, that Islam should be banned. |
![]() |






vi_spex | Throwback | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 | 6 |
vi_spex | Throwback | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
vi_spex | Throwback | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
vi_spex | Throwback | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 | 6 |