Bring it, I'm bored. Challenge me on anything

Although I my self am an agnostic (in fact I would consider myself a 6 on Richard Dawkins' scale) I find my opponent's flippant remarks regarding Islam to be rather troubling. Let me start by addressing claims made by my opponent in his opening argument. "sensitivity for whom?...amongst its members." First, let me answer my opponent's question. My point here was that following these attacks, a tremendous amount of anti-Muslim sentiment was stirred up amongst an already xenophobic population. After 9/11, the backlash against ordinary Muslims in the United States was so strong that many Muslims went into hiding, and even a Sikh man in Arizona was murdered simply for wearing a turban. With this in mind, I believe it is the media's duty to ensure that they do not propagate negative views of Islam. The publication of these cartoons did nothing to further such a goal. Secondly, my opponent seems to have confused al-Qaeda with Islam. Simply because al-Qaeda is an extremist Muslim group doesn't mean that an act which is committed by them must be followed by scrutiny and, in this case, degradation of a religion practiced by over a billion people. "Islam is not a race...(That's the free speech bit)." True, Islam is not a race. But Arab is. The characters in many of these cartoons are bearded men with scowling, shady faces dominated by big, bulbous noses. It reminds me a bit of the big-lipped African-American characters from cartoons of old. The "white Muhammad" my opponent is referring to is actually Danish writer Kare Bluitgen, who had recently published a children's book about Muhammad with illustrations. The PR stunt it talks about is his book. The Muhammad in that cartoon is the stick figure drawing he is holding. My opponent's final point here makes my case perfectly. Newspapers are by definition papers which should contain news. Sensationalism has no place in journalism. Here's the first definition of it in Webster's dictionary: "subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste." Does that sound like news to you? Is this really the type of reporting that my opponent advocates? Look up the wikipedia entry for tabloid paper and count how many times it uses the word "sensational" (I counted 15). I'm not saying that the newspaper didn't have the right to publish these cartoons, I'm simply saying they shouldn't have based on the reasons I've given. "How is this...heads while burning effigies." If you don't believe me about the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiment in Western Europe, you can read about it here (http://www.fairuk.org...), or here (http://www.independent.co.uk...), or here (http://www.masud.co.uk...). No seriously, don't take my word for it, take historian and Holocaust survivor Walter Laqueur's (http://blog.oup.com...). To imply that this "violent religion" has brought this upon itself is not only quite foolish but also simply ignorant. I agree that cartoons have a place as a valid form of criticism and this would be a legitimate argument here if Jyllands-Posten had a long history of standing up for provocative artistic expression. However, the editor refused the cartoons about Jesus on the grounds that they would OFFEND its readers. Why is it okay for his newspaper to offend Muslim readers but not Christian ones? "Any lack of assimilation...they shouldn't." I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. I've already talked about how pervasive Islamophobia is in Europe. The other day a woman was denied French citizenship for wearing a burqa, which has also been outlawed in all French schools (http://www.lemonde.fr...). Here's a quote from a recent report on the integration of Muslims in Europe by the Council on Foreign Relations: "The European-born children of the first generation immigrants have been educated in European schools, are more assertive than their parents, and speak Western languages fluently. At the same time, however, this second generation has experienced barriers to acceptance by European society, including widespread discrimination. Cesari says the discrimination occurs at every level of society, from housing to education to cultural practices." (http://www.cfr.org...) My opponent's point here is simply plain wrong. "Last I checked…sell them." Herein lies the real crux of the argument. Indeed, these cartoons weren't unsolicited. The paper WANTED to cause trouble, just not the kind of trouble it ended up getting. "We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid. The Culture War has now been raging for some years. And I think we can conclude that the first round has been won. The next front is the war against the acceptance of Muslims norms and ways of thought. The Danish cultural heritage is a source of strength in an age of globalization and immigration. Cultural restoration is the best antidote." Interesting quote, don't you think? This vaguely fascist, anti-Muslim comment is from a speech given by Danish minister of cultural affairs, Brian Mikkelsen, at his party's annual meeting the week before the cartoons were published last fall (http://www.spiegel.de...). Strange coincidence? Sadly, no. Jylland-Postens has historically been associated with the minister's Venstre party, and has been known to run stories which promote it's anti-immigrant agenda (http://www.meforum.org...). The offensiveness of these cartoons was seen as a benefit not because of the free speech dialogue that would result, but because it would further the paper's conservative cause. This shows a complete lack of journalistic ethics. "Except they…more often." Wow. Impressive generalizations here. Sure Islamic cultures can be misogynistic, so can all cultures. If misogyny is such an Islamic problem, why have two of the largest Muslim countries in the world, Bangladesh and Pakistan, voted women into power as prime minister while we here in the US are hearing questions like "are we really ready for a woman in the Oval Office" (apparently we're not)? Honestly we're getting off topic with this talk but if my opponent would like to debate me as to whether or not violence and terrorism are the "fruit" of the Islamic doctrine I would be happy to do so, but I would prefer if he keep his bigotry to himself in the meantime. As I have shown, these cartoons were not meant as constructive criticism or as tools to begin a dialogue, but instead as political, anti-immigrant propaganda. A newspaper's currency should be its information, its integrity, and its independence, not its sensationalism or its ability to conjure up PR stunts. (Note: I had to cut down my opponent's quotes in order to make room for my entire argument. Sorry if it makes it a little harder to follow.)