Pan-Islamism Would Be Dreadful In Application

I will use this round to finish off my rebuttals alongside my conclusive arguments. R1: ” It is inarguable that Muslim nations, representing either a Muslim majority population or a Islamic theocratic government rank high on the corruption index and the human rights violation index. All previously mentioned nations rank high on the corruption, human rights violation, and restricted freedoms list. They all rank low on ease of doing business, fair and legal business practices, etc. (By stating "high" I am referring to being ranked a large number, i.e 150/180, which refers to that specific nation being the 150th out of 180 nations, which is not good, depending on the subject.) (Stating low, in this case, would be the same as stating high previously. For example, France ranks higher on the ease of doing business scale when competing with these aforementioned nations.)” This is mostly irrelevant, since This argument fails to factor in why much of the aforementioned countries are corrupt. Pro (as seen in his previous arguments) implies that the cause of human rights violations or corruption in Muslim countries is contributed to Islamism or theocracy itself. This can be seen in round two of Pro’s opening arguments in which Pro states: “It is clear and evident that a formation of a theocratic nation dominated by Islamic law will eventually result in a process of dehumanization, denial of basic liberties, and widespread corruption. “ Pro implies in this rebuttal and his previous opening argument that the cause of human rights violations or corruption in Muslim countries is directly contributed to Islamism or theocracy itself , however Pro does little to prove this. The problem being that Pro may have found a causation between Islamic countries and corruption but fails to explain how Islamism is the causation of such despite suggesting that. With the logic that Pro has used, I could easily state that the reason for corruption in said countries can be linked to geography brining up a single correlation and immediately concluding that is the cause. Hence the argument used by Pro fits under the “false cause fallacy” in which (and I quote): “[to presume that] that a real or perceived relation between two things means that one is caused by the other” Sources: 1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 2. http://rationalwiki.org... R2: “Your main argument revolves around historical evidence to back up your argument in which a Muslim Caliphate of large proportions would be able to exist. What you forget to take into account is advacement. Need I remind you that all these previous Caliphates have been destroyed, taken over, or dissolved. There are no longer any Muslim empires, but there are quite a lot of nations and groups that seek to change that fact. Yet realize the fact that most countries from 1300 years ago (when the Umayyads rose) no longer exist today because that is perfectly normal for a country to break apart or reunify. The Byzantine Empire was superpower of the Middle East (before the Umayyad) yet now they no longer exist. The Sassanid Persians used to be the dominant power of the Middle East, yet they no longer exist. Also realize that the Umayyad were immediately replaced by another Caliphate, the Abbasids, whom went on from 750 Ad until the 1500s. And the Abbasids were replaced by the Ottomans. None of the Caliphates permanently collapsed, as the role of Caliphate jumped to a new country afterwards. And this system went on until the end of WW1, to which the cause of said collapse was a series of rebellions, coups and in-fighting brought upon by European colonialism. So whether or not these Caliphates no longer exist is irrelevant, since it is only the nature of countries in general to break apart or unify. Yet the Ummayyad Caliphate lasted form 661 AD to 750 AD" This is historically accurate, but I think the fact that this Caliphate could not even last 100 years speaks volumes for this argument. Additionally, the Rashidun Caliphate lasted from 632 Ad to 661 AD. 29 years for an empire is not a significant amount. Muslim nations have had rulers for longer, let alone having lasted for such a short period of time.” The reason for the Rashiduns end did not come as a result of being a Caliphate. If that was the case, then the Ottoman Caliphate would not have been able to survive from 1372 to 1918. The Abbasids would also not have survived from 750 AD until 1258. The Abbasid Caliphate survived for over 5 centuries and the Ottoman Caliphate was one of the longest lasting empires in human history, if the nature of the Caliphate were for it to be unstable and incapable of survival, than both the Abbasids and the Ottomans would have collapsed a very shortly after their establishment. Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.britannica.com... 3. http://www.economist.com... R3: “If you look at historical context, you can see that all Muslim Caliphates have been opposed not only by outside sources, but many of their own people. A strict Muslim rule does not speak volumes to many moderate people. Religion for the most part is a natural suppressor, which is why it is important to use human nature for many motives rather than religion. “ Pretty much every country over the course of it’s history has been opposed by outside forces and it’s own people. The United States has faced the Cold War, WW1 and WW2 as an example of opposition from outside forces, and has also seen protests, civil wars and secession movements as an example of opposition from its own people. Facing internal and external pressure is in the very nature of a country. Just because they face opposition from external and internal forces, doesn’t mean that makes the existence of the country ethically wrong. R4: “Please understand that I am not talking about this Caliphate lasting for a couple of years, which it of course will, as a nation of this size cannot be dissolved so quickly. I am referring to the Caliphate lasting for centuries upon centuries, for hundreds of years. My argument states that this cannot occur, as these problems would overtake it and its thecratic government will not have enough funds or the ability to do anything about it. “ The problem with that argument is that Caliphate governments that had been “lasting for centuries upon centuries, for hundreds of years.” Had occurred in history, at least twice. As mentioned previously, the Abbasid Caliphate survived for over 5 centuries until Mongol conquests, and the Ottoman Caliphate survived from another 5 centuries until WW1. The problem with Pro’s argument is that it hinges on the assumption that a long term Caliphate cannot exist, despite the fact that such is not the case. The Pro’s argument also hinges on the assumption that Islamism is a “idealistic” philosophy, and that Islamism has not been applied successfully before. Yet the Abbasid Caliphate not only lasted for 5 centuries, but also stood as one of the most prosperous nations of the world at it’s time. With libraries and universities in Baghdad that attracted scholars from as far as Europe. While Spain under Umayyad rule also prospered to a similar degree. Apologies if I failed to cover Pro’s 5th argument, as I lack the space and time to do so.Thanks to Con for the debate. Sources: 1. http://www.britannica.com... 2. http://www.saylor.org... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org... 4. https://www.boundless.com...