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

terror against freedom

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: 11/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 468 times Debate No: 96613
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




islam should be banned so victims of islam can escape and not worry about it


Hello, vi spex, and I gladly accept this debate on the merits of banning Islam, an entire religious group with more than a billion people worldwide. However, first I feel a definition of terrorism will be necessary and pertains to the topic at hand.
1: Terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion (1)

Now, you state that Islam needs to be banned so those who are a victim of an entire religion, can feel no fear from it. However, this is quite simply put preposterous. The radical groups you are mentioning do not reflect the entire group’s belief. In fact, almost all Muslims in Lebanon view ISIS unfavorably, and in the US they believe that their religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against religious groups (2). Now, you also speak of terror, to which I would like to respond by saying this: 94% of terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims (3). Now, I am not exactly sure what you are referencing by saying that victims can escape by banning the religion because I am not sure exactly to whom you are referring. If you mean those in the US, banning the religion would do nothing to ‘free’ anyone, who is most likely not imprisoned. In fact, all it would do is violate the US Constitution, according to the Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which means that any law could not be passed and would immediately be ruled unconstitutional. By banning this in the United States, or any country civilized country, you would only feed the flames of terrorism, as they would be able to convince and force more people into becoming radicalized.
I look forward to seeing your rebuttal, Vi spex.
3. and
Debate Round No. 1


muslims support the koran.. supporting islam is terrorism


You claim that supporting the Quran is terrorism, but that is not the definition of terrorism I included specifically because I mentioned it, and I knew you would. However, it is not terrorism because simply practicing a religion peacefully is not terrorism in any way. Some extremist groups do perform acts of terrorism, but as stated above, they are outsiders and actually are only responsible for 6% of the US’s terrorism problem, whereas right-wing extremism is responsible for 8 out of 14 prevented acts of terrorism(1). However, the many cannot be blamed for the acts of the few, which is why supporting Islam is not terrorism.

1. (See introduction)

Thank you for your response, however, please include at least 30 words in your closing statement, as I had almost nothing to argue against.
Debate Round No. 2


religion is war by disbelief

read the koran.. hate in its purest form


Thank you for the prompt reply, and first I would like to address your first statement: 'religion is war by disbelief' I, personally, am an atheist, however, everyone has the right to their own opinion and beliefs in religion. The majority of religious people do not try and force religion on you, even those whose beliefs require them to go and spread the word of their religion, never try to force you to do anything, they simply tell you about their religion in hopes that you will convert. Your second and final point calling the Koran hate in its purest form is simply nonsensical and has no pertinence to the argument. You provide no evidence for this claim, just your own opinion, and that is not enough evidence to prove a claim. In conclusion, banning Islam would do no good in the world, as it would only serve to provide more fuel for radical extremists who only corrupt an otherwise normal religion.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: BlueUpQuark// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct. They both had good spelling and grammar, nothing particularly off. Con made the better arguments. Pro made claims but didn't back them up. He also didn't really address cons arguments. Con also provided sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, simply restating the point allocation. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters, not merely state what one side failed to do. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side provided sources, having more is insufficient reason to award these points. The voter must establish their relevance to the debate as well.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.