Islam is Not a Violent Religion

The PRO completely understands your argument, yet your argument continues to lose ground. First - there is a LARGE difference between "fairly sizable" and "vast majority". The CON fails to see this and this is an err in your statistics. In addition, the CON fails to have statistical analysis that is valid and free of bias. You discuss the eleven muslim nations - yet how can we be so sure that these were not specifically chosen to show a skewed statistic. The CON must be reminded that statistics can, and often are, used to prove a point, so we could logically argue that the statistical data from the Clarion Project and Pew is skewed and unreliable. How can we be sure that this poll is fair? The opposing team states that other religious extremist groups are completely irrelevant, yet this again is a narrow-minded view, as religious extremism is defined by how other religions behave in relation to each other. For example, if Islam were the only religion with extremist groups while all others were peaceful, we would see them as violent. However, the reason, I repeat once again, that we see Islam as so violent, even in the presence of other religious extremist groups is that the media focuses mostly on them. You also speak of my "emotional attachment". Need I remind the CON that this debate is not about emotions, but rather about how the religion is viewed as violent or non-violent. I am simply stating that we cannot categorize an entire religion as violent based on how a select few act in the name of that religion. The CON continuously states that my argument is 100% negated. Despite this being a sign of nothing else to argue, you seem to be entertaining the thought that Islam is a violent religion simply based on its teachings. Even if its teachings are violent, we see that most Muslims are not so violent and war-mongering. The CON also states that we are debating the doctrine and not the actions of its followers, yet the Resolution states "Islam is Not a Violent Religion". The keyword is religion, which includes both the doctrine and the actions of its followers. Yet the opposing sides seems to believe that the resolution states "Islam's Teachings are Not Violent". I urge you to review and take a closer look at the meaning of the resolution. The opposing team has a weak argument that only focuses on the negative aspects of the religion's doctrines, while making insufficient concessions of the non-violence of the billions more. The CON yet again seems to believe that the religious groups define an entire religion from the statement "PRO does nothing more than strawman my argument and change the goalposts to talking about Muslims and other religious groups" With the specific use of strawman, you state that I am commiting to fallacy and wrongly accusing your argument, yet I have constantly referred to your argument and their fundamental flaws. The CON states that the doctrine is relevant, while the statements of the Prophet and the actions of its followers are not. I once again request that the CON pays attention to the resolution. A religion is defined as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance" [1]. You cannot simply state that religious documents are all that matter while disregarding the people and the holy members of the religion. The CON also discusses the ambiguity of certain lines in the Quran, stating we should disregard them. Yet, we need to consider this - do all Muslims simply disregard some of those lines of peace that hint ambiguity and go to violence? The answer is a definite no. The CON states that the context is completely critical, and the PRO could not agree more, yet the CON fails to understand that context is not only in the document itself. We, as a human society, must look at how the religion has been practiced. The 1.6 billion people are 100% relevant because, as I stated before, religion is not simply about the holy documents, but also about the followers and their practices. The CON also bought up the poll by Pew. Firstly, the link provided leads to the website, but no results are found - this disproves the validity of your argument on the basis that the data is false. I did my own research on Pew and found that there is outstanding concern and anger against Islamic extremist groups in Islamic nations. In fact, many Muslims are against these extremist groups an fear them - these people are part of the religion and help to define it as non-violent. 74% of Shia Muslims and 72% of Sunni Muslims in Lebanon are against the violence. I will remind the CON that Lebanon is one of the Islamic nations that the West associates with Islamic Radicalism [2]. Does it make sense that they are both violent and disapproving of the minority of Islamic radicals? Another point I must bring up - Even though the PRO disagrees with this, the CON believes that the followers are irrelevant and we must only focus on the doctrines of the religion. If so, then why bother with false statistics of the modern day supposedly from Pew? This is a stark and noticeable contradiction in the CON's argument, which states that we should only consider the doctrine and not the followers. I understand that extremist groups exist, and so does the CON, yet they cannot define an entire faith. Conclusion: There maybe evidence of cruelty in the Quran, but there is one fundamental fact that I will repeat AGAIN to be clear: A religion is not only defined by its Holy documents, but also by the way that its followers practice the religion. This resolution requires a holistic view of Islam as a religion. Your argument would hold ground if the resolution concerned only negative portions of the Holy Texts, but it does not. We must also consider the positive aspects of both the religious texts and its followers. The PRO looks at the religion as a whole, considering all aspects and making a few slight and appropriate concessions about portions of the Quran; however, the CON does not completely address the peaceful aspects of the Quran, believing in its violence in a narrow-minded way. Did I not show him quotes that express how Islam is a peaceful religion through quotes from the Quran and statistics of the religion's followers? I request that the CON take on a holistic view of the religion and its doctrines. The Quotes I provided prove time and again that Islam is not a violent religion, even though it contains a few extremist radicals. The CON also accuses the me of fallacy, when in fact, he is guilty of such - I have NEVER stated that all religions are equally peaceful. It is true that some are more turbulent than others in terms of peace, but I highly recommend that the CON takes on a holistic view before constructing the next argument. Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.pewglobal.org...