Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military

You first dodge my example by calling it “bizarre”. You dodge all my questions so it’s not an accusation it’s the truth. You beat around the bush, refuse to answer and don't even bother with following my sources. What kind of debate am I to have with someone like you? Turns out you weren’t worth my time. The argument weighs heavier in my favor with it extended to 7 compared to 1 Pvt. Manning. (BTW there’s more than just 7, 7's enough to prove my point) Despite my opponent labeling him as “anti-American” he's a whistle blower and thought he was helping his country. His attorney, “this was a person who had true intentions. He wanted to help America. He wanted to get people to think about what was going on in Iraq. And he didn’t have an evil motive in what he did.” (3) Again, no one died and I’d argue that by the public knowing these things it prevents us from doing more of the same which would ease “anti-us” sentiment in the middle east would it not according to you? So you’re listing of him is irrelevant. Why don’t you throw in Edward Snowden maybe that’ll bolster your case some too? Either way its irrelevant as to what some Muslims think in the M.E. of the US. They are already Anti-US as we are infidels and Islam demands our death or subjugation. This is why Christians are slaughtered and churches are burned down. Look through these sources and tell me how many countries have an “interventionist” policy. (1,2) “Con essentially concedes my framework. His only argument is that the debate is about "should" not "could", despite this being entirely irrelevant” My argument is entirely relevant because you are arguing something I’m not. The feasibility”of keeping out all Muslims is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE. If we had the ability, should we? Just like in my example, we can’t prohibit the teaching of religions but we can still have the debate. It simply serves to educate both the good and bad done in the name of religion. This debate serves to educate people on what it means to be a Muslim and what Islam instructs. Get it? You’re counter proposal is irrelevant except that it serves to prove my point. The concession you made about keeping out “anti-US” Muslims, is MY ARGUMENT. How you say? Well I’ve proven that by being a Muslim, you’re AUTOMATICALLY anti-American. I’ve outlined exactly what it means to be a Muslim and what Islam demands. To NOT FOLLOW ISLAM IN ENTIRETY IS TO NOT BE A MUSLIM! So the “peaceful” Muslim that doesn’t follow Sharia, doesn’t fight unbelievers is (according to Islam) an INFIDEL and not a Muslim. This version of a Muslim would promptly be beaten or executed by Muhammad. So you saying we should let this guy in the military ISN’T proving your case because THIS guy ISN’T MUSLIM. This entire debate is a thought experiment to educate people about what Islam really instructs and what it means to be a Muslim. “Dropped and therefore conceded.” I dropped and conceded nothing. This is a heavy blow for Con as in this contention I argued that social/political beliefs are more relevant factors to judging someone's potential threat I’m beginning to think you’re not even listening to a thing I say. You’re assertion is correct. However, it’s heavy blow for YOU not me. Forgive the capital letters but I feel I need them because you aren’t listening. You just keep talking in circles. You also ignore the British born Muslim in the video which proves MY CASE. How’s it a blow to you? Well I proved that Islam IS AN IDEOLOGY. Did you forget Sharia Law, it governs the “natural realm” as well or did you not bother to read that source either? As an ideology it trumps the country the Muslim is currently living as I've proven. You however don’t counter any of my points proving it’s an ideology but keep claiming it isn’t. This is TALKING IN CIRCLES. But I guess if you repeat something enough people will think it’s true. “These are clearly different” Yes religion and ideology are different. “and it's the ideology that Islam should take over everything else that is dangerous not Islam in itself” If you were listening I proved that IS WHAT ISLAM INSTRUCTS. That is the ideology of Islam! “The world will not come to an end,” said the Prophet Muhammad, “ until a man from my family (Ahlulbayt) and of my name SHALL BE MASTER OF THE WORLD...” (4) “ Fight those who believe NOT IN ALLAH nor the Last Day... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 9:29 "And fight them until persecution is no more, and RELIGION BE ONLY FOR ALLAH..." Quran 2:193 “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews”.. He said to them "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that THE EARTH BELONGS TO ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE, and I WANT TO EXPEL YOU FROM THIS LAND..” Bukhari 53:392 Still think Islam is not an ideology. Are these 4 sources enough or should I post 7? Should I mail you a Quran and the Hadiths for more evidence? Regardless if we are in the Middle East now, Islam would STILL BE A THREAT because the prophet and Allah commanded fighting till “RELIGION BE ONLY FOR ALLAH”! Thus your point is refuted. This circles back to those “bizarre” pirates... You know, the Muslim pirates capturing and killing American sailors BEFORE our “interventionism”. If we packed up and left today, Iran would still be pursuing nuclear missiles and trying to take over the world! Why? Islam! “It doesn't matter if Hell is ultimately unbiblical or Jesus absolved the OT.. so Cons argument is nonunique.” Yes it does matter. Unlike what you claim, it DOES MATTER WHAT A RELIGION TEACHES! And the concept of hell itself doesn’t call for violence on nonbeliever by believers. Hell is reserved as GOD’S PUNISHMENT. So you’re argument is “nonsensical” “He said it himself, it's not nearly as relevant what a religion teaches as it is the actions of it's followers.” I said there’s a difference not that its not relevant! How dishonest are you going to be? It is completely relevant what the religion instructs! If Christianity doesn’t instruct the Crusades then the Crusades CAN’T BE BLAMED ON CHRISTIANITY. But if Islam instructs the mass killings of non-Muslims then ISLAM IS TO BLAME! Get it? If the religion commands violence we must guard ourselves against those that profess to be of that religion. “Con doesn't understand the argument--motivations of pirates 200 years ago don't translate into motives for modern terrorists, my explanation is far more plausible than Cons.” That’s it, keep talking in circles with NO PROOF. I however have proven that 200 years ago the motive was Islam as it is today. FINAL NAIL Islam calls terror for more than 1 reason. #1 is to establish worldwide Islam, another is for “making mischief” in Muslim land (see video). Thus another aspect of Islam that calls for Jihad. If we aren’t “making mischief” (US intervention) Islam still commands Muslims to kill us. That’s why it was done in the past BEFORE our mischief making. “I answered my opponents questions last round out of courtesy...” Then you should have objected. But simply ignoring them doesn’t bode well on your part since you are dodging questions. You are supposed to answer questions or what’s the point of a debate? You seem a prime candidate to replace Jay Carney though. Conclusion 1 a moderate Muslim is not a Muslim according to Islam 2 The feasibility of keeping out Muslims is irrelevant in this debate 3 CON concedes we keep out “extreme” Muslims, who are simply real Muslims thus proving my case to not let them in 4 Islam is reason for both past and present Jihad/Terror 5 Our enemy is worldwide and motivated by Islam, thus obvious proven conflicts of interest to allowing Muslims in military 6 The ideology that is Islam trumps the Country’s ideology http://www.youtube.com... 1 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... 2 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... 3 http://www.democracynow.org... 4 http://www.al-islam.org...