The Wahabi is the most evil faith in existence today.

Outline.I. IntroII. Rebuttal of opponent's 1st claimIII. Rebuttal of opponent's 2nd claimIV. Rebuttal of several bare assertions by my opponentV. Would you believe the Hadith?VI. Stupidape's argumentsVII. ConclusionVIII. SourcesI. IntroThank you for accepting this debate. I'm a little surprised my opponent accepted. I would have thought there was a greater divide between the denominations within Islam. I thought I could use this to my advantage, yet my opponent shows how unified the Islam religion is. That an attack on one branch of Islam is an attack on all.II. Rebuttal of opponent's 1st claimOpponent's claim 1:"This is my second debate about Islam against Stupid ape.In the first one stupid ape lost a heavy loss, and I hope it happens again. In that one, stupid ape made a vague excuse that there were language barriers. I hope that excuse doesn't come again.http://www.debate.org......" justvotingtiedebatesMy counter claim: This is a red herring on my opponent's part.Warrant: "The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe." [2]Impact: Previous debates are irrelevant to this debate and should not influence the resolution or voters decision in any way. III. Rebuttal of opponent's 2nd claimOpponent's claim 2:"No, Wahhabism (not Wahabi) is not the most evil faith in existence today.Wahabism is not a faith. It is a religious movement.https://en.wikipedia.org......" justvotingtiedebatesMy counter claim 2:My opponent is just playing semantics. As illustrated below the English language allows for use of the word "faith" in this way. Warrant "I grew up Baptist and fondly remember as a child scurrying to the back of the sanctuary for left over crackers and grape juice after we had communion. It was a special occasion so it was not something we did very often. But us kids loved it. I had many Catholic friends. We never talked about religion. We were usually too busy playing baseball or swimming. As I grew older and started asking various questions, adults in my life told many things about the Catholic Faith. " [3]Impact: My argument stands, as I have proven the language allows for the word faith to be used in this manner. I suggest that my opponent should suffer a conduct point for this. My counter claim 3: The first part of the claim is based upon the second part, and the second is based upon semantics.Warrant: See counter claim 2.Impact: All that remains is my opponent's word that Wahhabism is not the most evil faith in existence today. Therefore, my original claim remains pristine thus far and continues to impact the resolution. IV. Rebuttal of several bare assertions made by my opponent."Islam does NOT have 'slavery'.Islam does NOT have 'multiple husband'. Polygamy is multiple wives not multiple husbands.Islam does NOT have 'religious intolerance'.Islam does NOT support 'misogynism'." JustvotingtiedebatesCounter claim 4: All four of these are bare assertions with no back up. Not only that but they are an appeal to authority fallacy as my opponent shows he most likely is Muslim. Warrant 4: "Thnx,Adil Muhammad,QATAR." justvotingtiedebates"Description A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.Example Simon says that Jack eats ice cream" [4]"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true."[5]Impact: My opponent's litany of stand alone arguments have no sway on the resolution.V. Would you believe the Hadith?"Islam does NOT have 'extreme racism'. It does NOT support racism.Islamic tradition known as Hadith states that in his final sermon the Prophet Muhammad, Allah"s Blessings and Peace be upon him, said:"There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white " except by piety."" justvotingtiedebatesMy opponent's only real argument backed up by the warrant of Hadith. Yet, my opponent fails to cite a source nor does he provide an impact back to the resolution. If my opponent does not provide a source, he has gained an unfair advantage, because then I cannot see the source in context. Counter claim 5: According to Hadith the prophet flew to Heaven on a winged Horse.Warrant 5: "In the year 621, at the age of 51 years old, He flew on the magical Winged-Horse of Fire which he called Burak, which literally means White Horse but seen as "Thunder-Lightning". The full version of this most memorable moment has been preserved in "The Bokhari" (Vol.15, p.3615) one of the Holy Islamic Scriptures. " [5]Impact: The Hadiths cannot be seriously considered a credible source. This is extremely improbable since the only known mammal that can fly is a bat, horses are mammals, gravity, no evidence of Heaven existing, and air becoming thinner in higher atmosphere. Therefore, until my opponent makes a solid case for Muhammad flying to Heaven on a winged horse, the Hadiths cannot be considered reliable. Thus crippling my opponent's claim. Opponent's claim "A YouTube video is not an argument nor a proof." JustvotingtiedebatesAnother bare assertion [4]. My opponent does not explain why a youtube video is not proof. I contend that a youtube is solid proof. Since its harder to forge false videos than type false words.VI. Stupidape's argumentsNow onto my arguments with what little characters I have remaining. Claim 0: It is extremely unlikely God existsWarrant: Mainstream science, the multiverse theory through evolutionary psychology.Impact: Since God is extremely unlikely to exist, then all three prophets in Islamic religion are almost certainly false prophets. Which obliterates the credibility of any of Islams religious texts. Think fruit of the poisonous tree. If the prophets are false, then the holy books and words from the prophet are also false. [6]All that's left are the actions of the people, since now the texts cannot be trusted. Claim 1: Saudi Arabia performs vile deedsWarrant: Main stream media. "The death penalty is routinely allowed for criminals convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, drug trafficking or drug use, and apostasy or the renunciation of the Islamic faith, according to human rights group Amnesty International. "[7]"In Saudi Arabia, sodomy is punishable by death. "[8][9]Impact: Saudi Arabia qualifies as evil. Saudi Arabia is Wahabi. The law and Wahabism is one in Saudi Arabia. VII. Conclusion My opponent has a red herring followed by playing semantics, next a string of bare assertions and appeal to authority fallacies. His only real argument is backed by Hadith. The only sources are a red herring of a previous debate and wikipedia. God is extremely unlikely to exist, making Islam prophets false destroying my opponent's argument while bolstering mine. Thanks.VIII. Sources2. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...3. http://ourcatholicfaith.org...4. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...5. http://www.allaboutturkey.com...6. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...7. http://abcnews.go.com...8. http://www.theatlantic.com...9. https://www.washingtonpost.com...