Resolved: An Islamic Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero.

"When I said that "if the builders choose to build it, it is not religious tolerance for Muslims", what I meant is that America will not show tolerance if the builders are building it against what America wants. If America does not approve of the building, it shows that America clearly does not approve of tolerance." ---And what are you trying to say with this? This argues my point better than it does yours. Your basically saying that Americans do not approve of tolerance, and that not building the ICC close to Ground Zero is giving in to that intolerance. "What I meant is that the fact that the majority of Americans are against it proves that the majority of Americans do not approve of freedom of religion shows that Americans do not support this religious tolerance and thus building it will not show any religious freedom or tolerance." --- No, building it will show that religious expression can proceed even with high amounts of intimidation from the American public. It is our responsibility as a nation that religious intolerance not disrupt the building of this ICC, because if it does, it only shows our failure as a free country. 1) "However, the reason the other mosque was built was so that peaceful Muslims could pray. Imam Rauf, the leader of this project, has clearly said that he choose this building "where a piece of the wreckage fell" from 9/11 on purpose in order to show that Muslim Americans are different." --- You are insinuating that this new ICC, unlike the other mosque in the are, is not for peaceful means. AT any rate, upon reading his source it clearly shows that the Imam has no sinister motives. Lets say a Baptist and group of maybe 20 of his fellow church goers run into a shopping mall and started blowing stuff up in the name of Jesus. 10 years later, a Lutheran wants to build a church next to the mall. He is denied because he is a Christian, and community hates all Christians because of what happened at the mall. Just like Christianity, Islam has separate sects, but that isn't the point. The point is your hating a group of people for something they didn't do. 2) Don't you find it odd that those without religious obligation are more accepting of a mosque near Ground Zero than Christians and other religious denominations? I am merely making the correlation from the poll that indicates that religious preference plays a role in the acceptance of the ICC. The fact is that many Americans are fearful of Muslims because the Muslims themselves have been stereotyped as terrorists. Catering to this widespread phobia by not building the mosque basically says that the religion of Islam and its followers are responsible for 9/11 and not the action of a few lunatics. 3) You keep saying that there are 30 mosques in New York. Well, NY is a pretty big area, and according to what I have presented to you, there is only one other mosque in the downtown area. The population boom in downtown Manhattan, along with the crowding of Muslims into an old Burlington Coat Factory to pray, gives me the idea that there's not enough prayer space in downtown Manhattan. And so the ICC should be built because it would be beneficial to the Muslims in the area. Building it somewhere else gives these people an inconvenience to travel when they have shouldn't have to. I say again: Not building the mosque burdens others with the actions of a terrorist cell. They are assuming guilt for something they did not do. 4) First off, Gandhi's ideology involved peaceful resistance, not giving up in the face of violence. Secondly, if I have to prove to that the builders aren't being threatened then fine, I'm not. So the ICC can be built then. The burden of proof to not build is on you. You then go onto to say "in order to protect these people." What does that mean? are you saying the builder's are being threatened? In that case, we should be allowed to bend to intimidation and thus the ICC should be built. CON CASE Instead of going through each contention again, I will condense this debate. What it basically comes down to on my opponents side is that: 1) The claim that Muslims also feel sensitive to building a mosque near ground zero. Instead of providing a statistic, he instead quotes a single Muslim and extrapolates an emotion for an entire religious community with billions of members. 2) He claims that an ICC will do little to heal rifts in American society. He makes this claim, with no evidence, and even in face of the fact that the ICC is intended by its builders to heal that rift [1]. At any rate, the Imam in charge of the building should not be held accountable for the feelings of billions of Muslims around the world. 3) "I realize their rights may be violated but I don't think asserting their rights is enough ground for allowing crime to continue while it can be easily prevented." --- What kind of statement is this? If I ran a hospital on street gang territory, and the gangs constantly harassed patients and staff, I would be held accountable for the violence in your views. I would have my license revoked, my hospital demolished, so that peace could return to the area. Does this sound right to you? Does giving into intimidation solve anything? Don't you believe in a code of laws that is far greater than any malevolent wishes a group of people has? Don't you think that the law should protect someone doing sometime that is not illegal? Oh whoops, it seems my caps lock key is about to break at the same moment yours did: THE RESOLUTION ASKS WHETHER AN ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER SHOULD BE BUILT NEAR GROUND ZERO. MY OPPONENT SEEMS TO CONTINUALLY EMPHASIZE THAT MY REASONS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO FORCE THE BUILDERS TO KEEP THE ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER WHERE IT IS. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FEW REASONS CAN FORCE THE BUILDERS TO KEEP THE ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER WHERE IT IS. HOWEVER, THE PRO POSITION ONLY ADVOCATES THAT IT SHOULD BE BUILT NEAR GROUND ZERO, NOT THAT IT MUST BE BUILT NEAR GROUND ZERO. THE REASONS I PROVIDE ARE MERELY REASONS WHY THE BUILDERS SHOULD VOLUNTARILY KEEP IT WHERE IT IS, NOT WHY OUR GOVERNMENT OR ANYONE SHOULD FORCE IT TO STAY. K, I fixed it. Yay, some Q&A: Question 1) It is your right to do what you want as long as it is within the boundaries of the law. Even if itmay be stupid, its your right to do it and I have NO PLACE in telling you what to do. Question 2) If I were Muslim, and people where threatening me for something I have never supported in my life, then I would be heavily offended. Question 3) The best way would be to learn to live with it and accept the fact that the people who murdered on 9/11 are not the same people building the freakin' mosque. Intimidating them only goes to show that we don't trust them at all, despite the fact that 99.99% of them haven't done a damn thing to us. Question 4) Maybe they get a space to pray in closer to their home? Perhaps the ICC will heal tensions in America? We don't know for sure, but your guess is as good as mine. I am running out of space so I will end this round with this: My opponent holds that since a small group of radial, extremist Muslims committed a heinous act of murder in the name of their god, then the entire religion and all its various denominations and sects should be feared. Any symbol which represented those killers should be banned from the place of the murder, despite the fact that they twisted the truth of their religion to serve their evil purpose. It is ludicrous at how much people have blown Islam of proportion, and because of this very fact an ICC should be built where ever it is needed. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com...