Islam is a direct threat to civilization.

That is fine I am just happy you slipped in before the time ran out! My opponent questions that, "My opponent still insists that Islam is a threat to his civilization and liberty. However, if this was true wouldn't it make sense for there to be less western converts to Islam?" I counter that this is a non-sequiter. Religion is a powerful force, fulfilling deep emotional and spiritual needs, it is likely that such considerations of 'secular' or mortal freedom are irrelevant to converts. In addition Islamic conversion in the west tends to be more common amongst the disenfranchised or poorer sections of the community, such as the prison population who in any case have been denied such liberty. http://www.radicalislam.org... "My opponent fears that Islamization will occur in Britain thus taking away many of his freedoms. While this is true, to a certain extent, wouldn't it be safer and healthier if certain things were taken out of society? For example, about 40% of all vehicle accidents in the US are contributed to intoxication." If this is true 'to a certain extent' as my opponent concedes that she must also concede that my argument is true to a certain extent. The consumption of alcohol is a major aspect of my culture. Very few people are teetotal, and alcohol serves a central function to social gatherings and special occasions. I consider it my right to consume alcohol. I fully concede that it may be bad for my health, I will not question the existence of drunk driving but the negative effects of alcohol are a separate issue. Alcohol consumption is (tenuously I grant), an aspect of my civilisation. If Muslims reach a majority it will almost certainly be outlawed or at least greatly restricted. The number of Muslims as a proportion of the total population of my country are growing. Therefore Islam poses a threat to my civilisation. Alcohol is but a small matter, this can be extrapolated to the whole range of personal liberties that I enjoy. "My opponent argues that Islam doesn't grant equality to men and women. This is indeed incorrect. Women are very much equal to men, but are treated differently. Men and women are biologically distinct individuals who have different needs. For example, men are usually physically stronger so should be responsible for more physical labour. As childbearers, most women have natural maternal instincts which generally make them better for raising children." I do not deny that the genders are different, this however is a departure from the relevant point. A bricklayer and a theoretical physicist are different, but they are both accorded equality under the law. The rules of divorce in Islam do not accord both genders legal equality. It is easier for a man to divorce his wife, than for a wife to divorce her husband, http://www.islamonline.net.... This shows clear inequality between the genders. "Even the Qur'an doesn't say women are inferior." It even goes so far I believe as to say men and women are equal. However two issues need to be considered. 1: We are discussing the nature of the Islamic religion, which though derived from the Koran is not the Koran, but rather the net result of humans reading, distorting, interpreting, successfully and unsuccessfully following it's rules or what they believe to be it's rules. My opponent has not challenged my examples of gender inequality in Islam. 2: Despite the claim that the genders are equal the koran lays down rules for a man to beat his wife, it does not lay down rules for a wife to beat her husband. This is therefore inequality. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... Therefore as the practice of Islam denies the equality of the genders, and as the practice of Islam is growing in my country it represents a direct threat to the personal liberty of half the population and a threat to the very nature of my civilisation which is built on egalitarian and democratic principles. "My opponent points out that my comparison involving the Spanish Inquisition was unfair. I'll like to counter with another comparison. America. Wouldn't America invading Islamic countries be a threat to Islamic civilization? Why the double standard, especially when thousands of innocent civilians are being killed by western invasions? The amounts of people who are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is more significant than the numbers of those killed in terrorist attacks against the west." Though my opponent raises an interesting point, it is obvious that my refutation or concession of this point has no bearing on the resolution. My civilisation is not threatened in this context accept by reprisals by Muslims, so it can only serve to support my claim. In my opinion my opponent has not refuted any of the points I have made thus far.