WRDL: Sign up sheet, Debate Topics & Scoreboard

[seiger]

I'll take it, so you can get that impression now. I'm not really sure what your stance even is, since within the same post, you took both the pro-Islam stance by citing religious freedom, then yourself picked out Christianity and Judaism. I seriously don't even know which side of the debate you're claiming, and don't think I'd really have to even post before you beat yourself.

well i believe in freedom of religion and believe it pertains to islam as well as all the other major faiths. i disbelieve in the presumption of exceptionalism that would exclude islam from freedom of religion, and i dont believe in any other scenario whereby one could ban a religion, other than thought police and/or christian (et al) theocracy.

fascists like glennsod dont really want to say what they are advocating, because logically it is theocracy or thought police and they know this.

the angle of the islamaphobes is to open a snippers nest debate, where they post no positive position for themselves, but use a biased proposition as a tool to attack islam while i defend it, while they reside in an unmarked territory with regards to what they believe. ie they can fire at will, but have posted no position by which they can be countered or attacked.

 

[nostradumbass]

well i believe in freedom of religion and believe it pertains to islam as well as all the other major faiths.

OK, then the debate would be the cutoff point for them, or Islam's compatibility with western countries, and will happily debate you on either.

Just a heads up, I'd cite all the failed religious cults and then your own posts to say why you don't even believe in your own position.

 

[Limbo Pete]

should freedom of religion include islam.

should islam be banned from the west.

those two contain both elements and im happy to debate either.

I feel like we would need get more specific somehow. Any debate that involves islam even tangentially has the potential for a massive clusterfuck.
But it seems like you and @nostradumbass could probably work something out along a freedom of religion-type angle.

 

[seiger]

OK, then the debate would be the cutoff point for them, or Islam's compatibility with western countries, and will happily debate you on either.

Just a heads up, I'd cite all the failed religious cults and then your own posts to say why you don't even believe in your own position.

i think the debate should be whole and not include previous posts. otherwise we are bringing the poster into the exchange. should really be like a double blind.

 

[nostradumbass]

i think the debate should be whole and not include previous posts. otherwise we are bringing the poster into the exchange. should really be like a double blind.

I feel like we would need get more specific somehow. Any debate that involves islam even tangentially has the potential for a massive clusterfuck.
But it seems like you and @nostradumbass could probably work something out along a freedom of religion-type angle.

K, just tell me what position I'm taking and what the rules are. Maybe the bounds of religious freedom? That's an uphill battle for me, but very winnable.

Edit: the uphill battle isn't as steep as I originally thought. I'll take that debate.

 

[seiger]

I feel like we would need get more specific somehow. Any debate that involves islam even tangentially has the potential for a massive clusterfuck.
But it seems like you and @nostradumbass could probably work something out along a freedom of religion-type angle.

yeah, my 3 issues are very simple.

1 implicit assumption of islamic exceptionalism rigs the question.
2 also a positive question begs an affirmative reply

ie should muslims be shot out of a cannon into the sun?

3 the refusal of the accuser to properly state position or alternative

should islam be banned? is used not -
should islam be banned and replaced by christian theocracy?

all of this on top of the fact we are realistically dealing with a muslim other for the core users of this site. the terrain matters. and the real terrain is whether our (western) ethos should include religious freedom (including islam.)

 

[seiger]

K, just tell me what position I'm taking and what the rules are. Maybe the bounds of religious freedom? That's an uphill battle for me, but very winnable.

i feel bad for you man. i would rather debate glenrod as he is a bigot and i promised i would debate him, but he keeps trying to set up a snipers nest debate and refusing to recognise his own designs. plus hes kind of disappeared so fuck it. he reneged.

as for you, i dont even know if we disagree on anything.

freedom of religion has its boundaries in the laws of the land, which have their own roots in human rights for the most part in the west. and property of course.

if a religion intrinsically conflicts with these things, then that would limit its adherents freedom to practice. one cant really limit thoughts and beliefs and ritualistic devotion though.

political movements have been banned effectively and one could compare religions or cults at least with banned political movements. theres scope there.

i dont see how you can ban a major world religion like islam and still have religious freedom. i dont see how you can have a free west as we know it, without religious freedom.

you can limit, but banning outright is prohibition of faith, and criminalisation of thought.

 

[nostradumbass]

yeah, my 3 issues are very simple.

1 implicit assumption of islamic exceptionalism rigs the question.
2 also a positive question begs an affirmative reply

ie should muslims be shot out of a cannon into the sun?

3 the refusal of the accuser to properly state position or alternative

should islam be banned? is used not -
should islam be banned and replaced by christian theocracy?

all of this on top of the fact we are realistically dealing with a muslim other for the core users of this site. the terrain matters. and the real terrain is whether our (western) ethos should include religious freedom (including islam.)

You can make the rules.

 

[nostradumbass]

i feel bad for you man. i would rather debate glenrod as he is a bigot and i promised i would debate him, but he keeps trying to set up a snipers nest debate and refusing to recognise his own designs. plus hes kind of disappeared so fuck it. he reneged.

as for you, i dont even know if we disagree on anything.

freedom of religion has its boundaries in the laws of the land, which have their own roots in human rights for the most part in the west. and property of course.

if a religion intrinsically conflicts with these things, then that would limit its adherents freedom to practice. one cant really limit thoughts and beliefs and ritualistic devotion though.

political movements have been banned effectively and one could compare religions or cults at least with banned political movements. theres scope there.

i dont see how you can ban a major world religion like islam and still have religious freedom. i dont see how you can have a free west as we know it, without religious freedom.

you can limit, but banning outright is prohibition of faith, and criminalisation of thought.

It's not banned. You're just making a false claim. I know a ton of Muslims and met most of them here, so how is it "banned"?

Go through my 9 year post history and find once where I advocated a theocracy. I don't even have a religion!

How can you "feel bad" for me, when you've never met me, and then say in the next paragraph you don't even know we disagree on anything?

 

[seiger]

It's not banned. You're just making a false claim. I know a ton of Muslims and met most of them here, so how is it "banned"?

Go through my 9 year post history and find once where I advocated a theocracy. I don't even have a religion!

How can you "feel bad" for me, when you've never met me, and then say in the next paragraph you don't even know we disagree on anything?

fascist movements have been banned, i meant. and one could compare a religion to a fascist movement i guess.


fuck it.

lets just do should islam be banned in the west.

nice sexy title.

lets do this.

ok i gave you a lot more scope than i would have given glennrod, as a like you, and its an insane position you are arguing. you will win the bigot vote naturally, but im not worried about that.

rules are you need to promote a positive position as you are challenging the status quo. so please elaborate what your final solution is... and you can go first as you are challenging the status quo.

other than that. fuck it. lets do it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

fascist movements have been banned, i meant. and one could compare a religion to a fascist movement i guess.


fuck it.

lets just do should islam be banned in the west.

nice sexy title.

lets do this.

ok i gave you a lot more scope than i would have given glennrod, as a like you, and its an insane position you are arguing. you will win the bigot vote naturally, but im not worried about that.

rules are you need to promote a positive position as you are challenging the status quo. so please elaborate what your final solution is... and you can go first as you are challenging the status quo.

other than that. fuck it. lets do it.

We're not gonna do straight up "should Islam be banned in the west." Sorry to put the kebosh on that but it really doesn't have a whole lot of ways it could go right imo. If you could make it a constitutional argument or something, maybe. But just a debate on banning Islam isn't going to work.
I see however that you guys definitely want to go for this though so let me see what @Fawlty and @JDragon think. Maybe between all of us we can come up with a question here that approaches the idea from a less disaster prone angle.

 

[Fawlty]

There's no argument in the United States for the banning of any religion. I don't know about Europe but I suspect it's just as bad of a question there.

 

[seiger]

We're not gonna do straight up "should Islam be banned in the west." Sorry to put the kebosh on that but it really doesn't have a whole lot of ways it could go right imo. If you could make it a constitutional argument or something, maybe. But just a debate on banning Islam isn't going to work.
I see however that you guys definitely want to go for this though so let me see what @Fawlty and @JDragon think. Maybe between all of us we can come up with a question here that approaches the idea from a less disaster prone angle.

we could do trumps ban idea, but like a permanent um... final... solution. hahahaha. i dont know. it really is insane. this website trolls me.

merits of a permanent ban on muslims entering america/ the west/ christendom. lol.

 

[Limbo Pete]

we could do trumps ban idea

This is more like it. As an actual legal proposal, there is a framework to debate something here. You could look at his EO from a constitutional perspective, or some such thing.
Thoughts, @Fawlty? Something along these lines seems more practicable.

 

[seiger]

There's no argument in the United States for the banning of any religion. I don't know about Europe but I suspect it's just as bad of a question there.

well where do you think this islamaphobes that i argue with are going? final solution is final solution. there is no lets sit down and have a cup of tea with them and discuss the merits of leaving for arabia. this is the whole reason i get accused of being a troll. arguing against people who vehemently want to eradicate a major world religion and who believe they are in a holy war.

you mean to tell me all these bigots dont want to do anything? whats the point in arguing with them then?

 

[Fawlty]

well where do you think this islamaphobes that i argue with are going? final solution is final solution. there is no lets sit down and have a cup of tea with them and discuss the merits of leaving for arabia. this is the whole reason i get accused of being a troll. arguing against people who vehemently want to eradicate a major world religion and who believe they are in a holy war.

you mean to tell me all these bigots dont want to do anything? whats the point in arguing with them then?

Please cool it with big emotional posts like this in our sign up thread.

 

[JDragon]

I'd be down for a 'Banning Muslim entries is a good idea' if it covers the fight against terrorism.

 

[seiger]

This is more like it. As an actual legal proposal, there is a framework to debate something here. You could look at his EO from a constitutional perspective, or some such thing.
Thoughts, @Fawlty? Something along these lines seems more practicable.

im not even american, but ill have a crack at it, if you want to make it a permanent ban.

 

[seiger]

Please cool it with big emotional posts like this in our sign up thread.

i was just being honest. but fair enough. i shall take my shoes off before i enter your um ... temple.

either way, this is adieu from me. it is the eve of valentines day, and im off to bag some bargain bucket skirt, and quite possibly a kebab. laters.

 

[Fawlty]

i was just being honest. but fair enough. i shall take my shoes off before i enter your um ... temple.

This thread isn't for debates, it's for signing up for debates. Limited discussion of propositions is okay, if it's for the purpose of establishing a debate question. You've been acting erratically, and that makes me feel like a debate with you is not going to go smoothly or help us improve the debate league.