Islam is a religion of terror

Premise Rebuttal I: Descriptive and Prescriptive Text.Pro lacks understanding in this field of linguistics. The writers simply wrote, and rather or not something is descriptive or prescriptive depends on why it was written. If someone was writing of a war, most text there will be descriptive, but if he was writing the rules of war, it's prescriptive.Premise Rebuttal II: Definition.The Terror implied in the Resolution is the form of Terror I have defined. As the context under which this debate was formed proclaims. "The quran instructs its believers to bring terror to the infidels. This then translates into the majority of the world's terrorist being Muslim." -Pro, in the conversation leading to the creation of the debate (1) The rest of Pro's argument makes no sense. Arguing about what words I capitalize and what words aren't. If Pro must know, I capitalize every word that is in the resolution's title because it stands out as important.1) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.In regards to Fighting and Terror, the difference is in what they are, Terror doesn't attempts to cause anxiety, it is anxiety and fear. fighting doesn't. But even though fighting 'could' lead to terror, doesn't mean it is terror. Lets consider this. A leads to B, there A is B? Sex could lead to Babies, therefore Sex is Babies. The logic isn't sound. Fighting could lead to terror, 'could', but that doesn't mean the Quran promotes terror. It has so far only promoted self defense. Self defense does not equal Terror.Prescriptive and Descriptive Text are linguistic concepts. When writing the Quran, they also didn't redefine vowels, analogies, adjectives, or nouns, but they are still there. Descriptive Text describes something while Prescriptive Text is instructive (2). The writers likely knew exactly what the text was while writing it, but rather or not they did isn't relevant, however. Pro's argument is Argument from Incredulity.In regards to Argument IV. Pro quotes the text out of historical context. When discussing a historical book, you have to analyze the culture. This text was written during a 3 month period of peace. There was a war against the pagans in the area, and during the peace, Muhammad wrote telling the Pagans that they may leave in peace, but if they resumed hostilities and continued fighting, the Muslims would defend themselves. It is a text about self defense, once again. The text then continues on to discuss mercy and forgiveness. Pro, again, cherry-picked the statement and left out historical context (3)This has been Pro's whole argument. Nothing she claims takes cultural context, historical context, or descriptive/prescriptive text into account, and usually leaves out surrounding text that explained it better.As for culture, cutting off hands was a common day punishment, not a force of terror. Pro's own quote shows this as punishment for people who continue, or started, fighting the Muslims in war. This is a punishment for waging war. Not a punishment for a petty "crime" like Pro assumes. And Pro cherry-picks the Hadith, as always. Prior to her text, we see this:"they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away."Cutting off hands and feet were the punishment, in this case, for murder (4).Pros next two text are gravely misrepresented. The text doesn't refer to suicide murder at all. This is quite obvious. It is saying that those who fight in the cause of Allah, and die, will be rewarded for his sacrifice. But never does it say to kill innocent people. It is that a solder fights knowing he will kill and possibly be killed. Not that he will kill himself murdering innocent people, that isn't mentioned at all in the text. It should be noted that the 'cause of Allah' so far has only ever been referred to as fighting in self-defense from another culture or religion. "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." Quran (4:74). The text never proclaims fighting with terror. Finishing the text, we see the next verse is discussing the fighting being against oppression. "And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children" (5). The text doesn't say 'or', it says 'and'. This implies the 'cause of Allah' and 'fighting for the oppressed' are one in the same."Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" Quran (4:76) This text comes after the prior text. The cause of Allah here is the same as the cause in the prior text (fighting for the oppressed). This is also cherry-picked as the rest of the verse contains this: "and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak." The text discusses believers and non-believers alike working together to fight evil.Pro's next text, Quran (4:89), is from the same group of verses. The "cause of Allah" here is the same as in the prior, and it is calling to fight for the oppressed, specifically, the religiously oppressed. And just like in the prior texts, it never calls for terror or trangression. The next passage Pro listed was Quran (3:95). It, like the prior, is apart of the same text, and fighting in it is against those who oppressed the Mulsims. The last verse Pro mentioned was Quran (8:12). The full text is as follows: "[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." This isn't calling for Muslims to commit terror. This is an God-given punishment for not believing. Much like how other religions have a hell, Islam also has a realm of punishment for those who don't believe in Allah. It was important for Pro is leave out the rest of the text, because it shows that Allah's command to "strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." was for the Angels, not for people.Pro wanted me to tackle each verse, and I have. That was the last of Pro's text supporting her case, I have concluded this Rebuttal.2) http://tinyurl.com...3) http://tinyurl.com...4) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal II: Allah and Women.Pro accuses me once again of Straw-man. As I've mentioned prior, it is poor conduct to accuse someone of a fallacy, without explaining how his logic was fallacious. Pro does not believe in Allah, nor do I. Then how are we to expect him to stop it (no offense.) The very argument is moronic. Even then, for Allah to stop it would contradict free will.Pro's argument is entirely fallacious. If I kill in the name of my Mother, is she responsible? Did she want it? If she's dead (analogy for not existing), is it her fault that she didn't stop me? But if she is alive, and she calls 9-11 on me (sending me to hell), she did her job. God doesn't stop us from sinning, that is not his job. But it is likely suicide bombers go to hell."Sure, but he gave everyone free will, therefore he still wants terror. If he did not want terror, then he would not have granted free will."I rest my case regarding poor and terrible logic. A parent gives their 18 year old child free will, but doesn't want them to misuse it. The Constitution gives everyone free will, does it also want terror? Does my mother want me to be an alcoholic because she gives me the free will to drink? She possibly doesn't even want me to drink, better yet be a drunk. In the end, Allah would punish any suicide bomber.Pro does little to refute my case on women, cherry-picking the case. Dropping my entire case to focus on one text. Does telling a parent to spank his child also promote terror? This is text regarding punishment and discipline, not terror. Constantly abusing a wife is terror, hitting them in some circumstances, while bad, isn't terror. In the ancient Arabic culture, women were seen in the same light as children, to be disciplined if misbehaving, not abused and terrorized. The Quran doesn't promote terrorizing one's wife.Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.Accusing a religion of being a religion of violence, when very few who follow that religion interpret the text as such is ignorance. Again, Pro makes a false accusation of straw man without support. Claiming the religion is one of violence because a few small extremist groups believes it is is an extreme case of cherry-picking the population. If less then a few percent (if that) believe it is a religion promoting terrorism, than what of the vast majority?The text regards those who are *forced* into lying, not casual lying. Calling war deceit isn't asking people to deceive each other. Besides, lying isn't terror. Pro is trying to use text that says people who lie because they are forced aren't bad to claim highly accredited polling sites are wrong. Pro's case is still about maybes, and her text contradicts her claim, excluding moments when lying was forced upon them.The audience can, in fact, view the sources. They support none of her claims, most of which are made up. I did the control-f on the sources.Pro has dropped my whole case on Culture. Replacing it, instead, with misread texts to claim that Muslims, as a whole culture of 1.6 billion, have apparently been lying (5).5) http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion: While some extremist Muslims have indulged in Terror, like any group, this does not imply that Islam is a Religion of Terror, but that Islam is a religion of people.I have shown each text Pro offered to be text of self-defense and fighting for the oppressed, not committing terror. Rebuttal I was Pro's strongest case.Pro has dropped Rebuttal III: Islamic Texts II.Pro has dropped Rebuttal IV: Religion vs Culture.Terror is a cultural issue, not a religious one. Islam is not a Religion of Terror.