Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

Opponents quote: "At no point do I say Islam is not immoral by the human rights values held by majority in the west." Then you lost the debate because I clearly stated that this is my definition and that you should not accept the debate if you do not agree with the definition. And you even agreed with the definitions "I agree with the rules and the definitions provided." At no point do I say Islam is not immoral" neither do I say it is moral do I. "However their values do not mean their argument is correct, your values do not speak for everybody." Which, like a vast number of my other arguments were simply ignored and tried to be twisted. If this was a professional debate you would have been disqualified, this isn't the US presidential debates. It isn't about who is more popular. I accepted the rules given in the debate, and like all rules which are agreed upon by both parties should be held up throughout the debate by both opponents. Rule 2 - Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and or logical fallacies. My reply to this rule was: "I would like to provide 2 more points of reference in regards to the rules, I don't want us regressing into a debate on fallacy lol. https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...; As is clearly demonstrated in my arguments both of these fallacies are employed by my opponent throughout the debate, and is why I posted these 2 in particular. My opponent has decided that his argument should be picking select parts of mine and twisting it to his own narrative. I would ask my opponent to reassess what a debate is for and how to conduct one properly. Dangerous rhetoric created by hate groups was clearly explained in both of my arguments, the radicalization done by hate preachers in some certain cultures within Islam is no different than the far right groups who spread hate of Islam, ulterior motives getting both sides to hate each other but obviously you do not realize it when you are the one being manipulated. I did not at any point say Islam is immoral, so as for not respecting the rules, my opponent is simply using red herrings. He also seems to believe that he is the judge of this debate by putting in his conclusion that he 'had better conduct' which is for the reader to decide, not him. I think that is very clearly not the case. "My opponent was not able to rebut all of my arguments and even admitted that Islam is immoral so I had the more convincing arguments. (Pro)" He said this also, despite not arguing any of my points about his whole argument being a fallacy (it's okay to accuse me of fallacy apparently) or that Islam is not one culture or one country or in one group of laws. I also offered more than enough evidence to say why a big list of sources you don't like about Islam is irrelevant. If you only read negative stories why would you think any different? The argument states: "Islamic culture and Islam is immoral" This has been clearly shown to not be true, and completely subjective of the person making the judgement. If the argument was 'Pakistan acid throwing culture is Immoral" it would be different. Instead, my opponent is showing radicalization done by far right rhetoric, populist movements are political creations just the same as groups like ISIS. I have also mentioned that both sides want the same goal (for everyone to hate Islam) so maybe my opponent needs to be more wary of who he listens to, and why they are pushing the rhetoric they do. I think it more clear that there is immoral undertones to this argument by the accuser. My opponent used Scripture of the Islamic faith for justification of arguments, yet I have clearly shown that interpretations of the Qur'an are as varied between different Muslim sects as it is in the various Christian sects. People who argue scripture for justification of the book of Genesis are usually discredited, why is it okay to use other religions scripture for justification against its people? Would you blame the violence in the Bible to yours? My opponent thinks it is okay for one religion to mistreat women (catholic) due to their religion, but not another. Surely it can be seen that the actions of the Catholic church were considered 'moral' then and now they are not, and that is within one culture. All of my argument shows that all countries improve, all of my opponents argument shows is that conservative thinking in all countries is manipulated very easily when bigots are the ones giving out news.