Pan-Islamism Would Be Dreadful In Application

Introduction: Upon reviewing your profile, I have come to the conclusion that we are opposite in every single aspect except for gender. I have read some of your debates, and have understood your stance on an absurd subject, the idea of Pan-Islamism. I will state that overall, I find the idea of any Muslim nation, caliphate, or collection of Muslim areas under theocratic rule to be terrifying both realistically and idealistically. I will also go to state that I find any religious motivations for certain laws that prohibit actions to be wrong and goes against the basic ideals and principles of a true and strong Republic or Democracy. I have challenged you to this debate because I have been bored too long. I have a thirst for winning debates and I need more wins to quench this undying thirst, and for some reason, drinking Gatorade will not help this thirst. I will law a basic foundation for the vernacular and rules used in this debates henceforth so there shall be no areas of confusion. Pan-Islamism - a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state " often a Caliphate " or an international organization similar to a European Union with Islamic principles. [1] In this debate specifically, we will assume that instead of a legislative world body such as the United Nations or the European Union, this Muslim group will be a theocratic conglomerate composed of multiple majority Muslim nations that share borders with each other. In this sense, I will state that this "Pan-Islamic" caliphate will consist of the autonomous nations of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc. (If I have missed any majority Muslim or Muslim based theocratic government nations then feel free to add more). I reiterate, the rule is that these nations have to be bordering each other, and cannot have holdings in other parts of the world. That means that you cannot incorporate nations such as Indonesia or Bangladesh into this list, as Bangladesh is not neighboring any of the aforesaid nations and neither is Indonesia, but both have a large Muslim population. As a conclusion, I will list some rules that we uniformly have to adhere to. Failure to adhere to these rules will be detriment to the final score of our debates. For example, if one of us decides to be legitimately insulting, then the voters will ultimately award the point for conduct to the opposing side. Rules: A general array of etiquette that can be inferred such as respect for other's opinions and the right to state these opinions freely, without slander for the statement of these ideas. However, the description of someone's argument to be a complete fallacy is acceptable, as there can be no debating without stating that the opponent's argument is not applicable or is nonsensical in basis. Do not quote anything from any religious source unless the debate takes a path in that specific direction. Finally, let me state that you are responsible for the opening argument, in which you are responsible for highlighting your current ideas, (which, inevitably, will be utterly destroyed and capitulated during my argument.) Remember to use sources and clear facts, as well as a general observation of world events, politics, geographical differences, and so on. I conclude. I await your approval to my challenge and your opening response. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org...