The Wahabi is the most evil faith in existence today.

An-Nu’man ibn Basheer reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The parable of the believers in their affection, mercy, and compassion for each other is that of a body. When any limb aches, the whole body reacts with sleeplessness and fever. "My argument gave no evidence in the first round, except a YouTube video, which is NOT considered an argument, with the BOP on him. Without forgetting that, I am going to defend my 'statements' in the first round which were rebutted by my opponent in the second round. My strategy in defence will be: ("Rebuttal" -Defence)Defence: 1. "My 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. " PRO. - In the definition of a red herring, it says: 'It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. ' A FALSE CONCLUSION. Firstly, That I had another debate with you or that you lost in that one IS NOT A FLASE CONCLUSION. Secondly, you yourself say that it is a debate tactic! Why shouldn't I use it? Thirdly, yes! previous debate are irrevelant to this debate, and shoud not influence the resolution or voters decision in any way. I never said it should. Mind it, not only voters visit this site. Many reasearchers do, too. If somebody comes searching for racism in Islam, he/she can refer to that debate for more information. I never said that: voters, plz check out the previous debate too! 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. 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. "PRO. - The greatest ignorance is to criticize something you know nothing about. If you call Catholism as a religion, and a faith, then Islam is a religion, and it has 4 faiths. Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki. Wahhabism IS NOT A RELIGION, NOR A FAITH. IT IS A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT INSIDE ISLAM. NOT SEMANTICS. Worthy voters, my opponent doesn't know anything about Islam, it's four faiths, or about Wahhabism, and yet he says that Wahhabism is a faith! 3. "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. "PRO. - I have already showed that I didn't play semantics.4. "Rebuttal of several bare assertions made by my opponent. "Islam does NOT have 'slavery'. .. .. Counter 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. " PRO. - If these are really bare assertions, then dear opponent, you have worse bare assertions. In round one, my opponent says :"From slavery, to multiple husband, to extreme racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, and misogynism. If Satan exists, Saudi Arabia would be his stronghold. " These are bare assertions with no back up, too. And no, I don't show that I am most likely a Muslim. I show that I AM A MUSLIM. Plese don't play dumb. I already told you in the last debate that I AM A MUSLIM.5. "Warrant 4: "Thnx, Adil Muhammad, QATAR. " - I don't know what my opponent has to rebut in my name or place.6. "My 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. "PRO. - Two things to say. Firstly, It was an opening argument in first round, so if I gave NO arguments at all in the first round, it would be fine. Secondly, What difference does it make for you if I said "narrated by Bukhari or Muslim"? You will accuse me of lying in both ways, and say it is not a source. Anyway, I writing this for any researchers: That Hadith is narrated in Mosnad Ahmad, #22978.7. "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. " PRO. - Voters, A RED HERRING! This debate is about Wahabism, and my opponent is talking about the Prophet pbuh going to the heaven? Worthy opponent, we can have another debate on that topic if you like. I already had a debate about that: . http://www.debate.org...8. " I contend that a YouTube is solid proof. Since its harder to forge false videos than type false words. " - Then why are you debating and giving arguments? Just search on google: 'Why Wahabism is the most evil faith', and send me all the links! !9. "Claim 0: It is extremely unlikely God exists. Warrant: 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. . " PRO. - AGAIN A RED HERRING! WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT! WE AREN'T TALKING EITHER ABOUT WHETHER WAHHABISM IS TRUE OR FALSE. NOR ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ISLAMIC TEXTS. We are talking about the 'evilness' of the Wahhabi faith. Islam doesn't have three prophets. I repeat: The greatest ignorance is to criticize something you know nothing about. 10. "Saudi Arabia performs vile deeds" PRO. - In this debate and in the previous debate, I said many times: " JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT'S ORIGINAL BELIEF. "I don't know the reason of my opponent setting the maximum number of characters at 8,000. I have many things left to say. left. My opponent's argument is FULL of red herrings, and things my opponent knows nothing about. I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION.36 Characters Remaining with the sourcesSources:SP3;ahP3;iM2;hP3; al-BukhaM2;riM2; 5665, SP3;ahP3;iM2;hP3; Muslim 2586. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://english.stackexchange.com...https://www.quora.com....