ban islam
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Throwback
| 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 | ||
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)
 Pro  Con 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... |
 |
|
Pro ban islam.. obviusly Con 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. |
 |
Post a Comment
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by DocMan 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Report this Comment
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ADHDavid 2 years ago
| 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 |
Reasons for voting decision: Usually, I would take time to explain why I voted. In this case, however, it's fairly obvious to see at a glance who won.
Vote Placed by theobjectiveobjective 2 years ago
| 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 |
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro did not make a strong argument or even explain his position
Vote Placed by SM29 2 years ago
| 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 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an assertion (therefore has BoP), but offers no evidence to support the position. Pro's only argument is his opinion, with no sources cited or even logical framework supplied to support the statements made. Con responded well to Pro's assertion of "muslim" in Rd. 1, then made an effective argument that banning Islam is oppressive and contrary to a free society. Con failed utterly to respond to this argument in Rd. 2, only making another unsupported assertion, and Con easily clinched. Clean sweep of the categories by Con.
Vote Placed by Overhead 2 years ago
| 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 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a non sequitur I can't even make sense of in R1 and a non-sequiter in R2 that I can understand but which falls short because cannabis isn't a religion and even if it were that wouldn't automatically mean you needed to ban all religions or Islam specifically. No sources provided, lack of capitalisation in appropriate places and punctuation. Basically no worthwhile content
Con makes decent arguments such as the protection of the freedom of religion as enshrined in significant documents like the US constitution (Which is proven via sources). Also points out in R1 how Pro's random non sequiter doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of even basic definitions. Presented using the average kind of S&G you'd expect, with normal punctuation and capitalisation. Not the best argument ever written, but it doesn't have to be to be many times better than the opposite argument.