Islam is currently more dangerous to world peace and free thought than any other religion

My opponent insists on using every single letter (to argue something that ultimately is irrelevant, as you will see). .. I will do my best to keep this short and to the point. First, my opponent did concede that Stalinism is a greater threat to global tranquility and free speech because he did not contend that it wasn't. In this manner, he had dropped my case. Simply beginning to bring it up again at the very end is poor conduct and such arguments should not be considered. Second, my opponent has provided a definition in the final round of this debate. My definition was provided in the first round and was the definition I had agreed to by accepting this debate. Third, under every definition my opponent provided, Stalinism is a religion. The "Stalin", or political figure, is held in high regards and faith as if he were a god. The definition of "god" is "one that is worshiped, idealized, or followed", "a powerful ruler or despot", or even "a very handsome man". . http://education.yahoo.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Even if you go a different and silly route through the definitions, Stalinism is a religion: -The government has absolute power -The government is held with and in high faith -The government is held with ardor -The man in power is worshiped -The government is an "ultimate reality" -The government is devoted to religiously -(etc. ) Without a doubt, Stalinism is a religion. Finally, I do not have to really contend that Islam is terrible, because Stalinism is worse (as conceded by my opponent). However, I will address my opponent's case nonetheless. (You don't have to read this. Just stop here and vote CON. This is really just for fun. ) "My opponent protests that most of the 1.7 billion Mulsims live peacefully and I agree. " My opponent concedes that most of Islam is not harmful to free speech and free thought. My opponent claims that the Qu'ran demotes women. This is not a threat to free thought and world peace because women can still speak their minds and no war results. My opponent claims that I "cherry-picked" my evidence that the Qu'ran does not endorse female genital mutilation; however, his argument against that is logical fallacy: -Because Jews and Christians do not cut female genitals, the Qu'ran endorses female genital mutilation. Obviously, this is silly. I have proved that female genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice, but an African tradition. My opponent then contradicts himself: -"In fact Ms. Ali states there is NO moderate Islam. " Wait a minute: -"My opponent protests that most of the 1.7 billion Muslims live peacefully and I agree. " Hmm. .. My opponent's argument against something he already conceded, that Stalinism is a current threat, is: -Because only 70 million people endorse Stalinism, it is not a threat. As I have already shown, Stalinism would be a threat if that 47% jumped a simple 4 points. Further, it does not take a majority to overthrow a government and install Stalinism. So, yes, Stalinism is currently dangerous to free thought and global tranquility. My opponent contradicts himself again in saying: -Islam is a CURRENT threat at international levels (Iran, 911, London transit/Spanish train bombers) He has already claimed that the majority of Islam is peaceful. This is simply a radical faction with fewer than Further: ""there is nothing Islamic about terrorism"" . http://www.religionnewsblog.com... Simply put, Islam is not a threat to world peace (while radical Islam is). My opponent also says that the following are worse than Stalinism. To show how silly this is, I put up a side-by-side comparison: -women are suppressed (versus) women are enslaved -authors are threatened (versus) authors are killed -terrorism (versus) political genocide -threats against Israel (versus) a second Cold War To stay brief, I will end here. I used less than half my characters.