Islam is a religion of terror

I’m going to summarise with the argument that won me the debate. I’m going to reiterate it, so that it is clear that I have won. I’d only be repeating myself, in regards to the other arguments, and they are far more moot than this one. Winning argument: Allah does not stop terrorism in the name of Islam My opponent, in several attempts, has completely failed to accurately address this argument. This is much to his detriment, as this argument alone wins me the debate. Here is the argument again: 1)Some Muslims commit terror in the name of Islam 2)Allah is omnipotent and omniscient 3)Allah does not stop this terror 4)Therefore, we assume that Allah wants terror in the name of Islam Let’s have a look at my opponent’s counter-arguments: “Pro does not believe in Allah, nor do I.” It is of no relevance what my or my opponent’s beliefs are, in regards to Islam itself. A tenant of Islam is that one has belief in Allah. My opponent’s argument is Ad Hominem, because he is saying that because I don’t believe in Allah’s existence, my argument about Islam is void. My argument about Islam can be legitimate, regardless of my beliefs. “Then how are we to expect him to stop it (no offense.)” Again, a tenant of Islam is that you believe in Allah. Since I proved that Allah was omnipotent and omniscient, it follows that: 1) Allah knows about it 2) Allah is capable of stopping it Therefore, we are to expect Allah has the capability to stop it (if he wants to). “…for Allah to stop it would contradict free will.” So what? Is Allah incapable of changing the laws of our universe? No. Why does this refute my argument? This is not an argument involving the resolution; it’s merely stating a fact, which does, in no way, contradict my argument. If Allah were to take away free will, in stopping the terror in his name, so what? Then it would follow that Islam is not a religion of terror, but that hasn’t happened, has it? “If I kill in the name of my Mother, is she responsible?...” In my last response, I made it incredibly clear that the difference between the example given, and the example I used (Allah), was that Allah was omnipotent and omniscient. And what does my opponent do? He almost argues the same thing. Again, Allah is omnipotent and omniscient; the mother is not. The mother isn’t capable of changing everything, whereas Allah is. This difference is important, as we can then assume Allah’s intentions, based on his actions. Since he chooses not to stop the terror in his name, we must assume that he wants Islam to be a religion of terror. “A parent gives their 18 year old child free will, but doesn't want them to misuse it…” Con perpetually embarrasses himself by using examples that pertain to non-omnipotence and non-omniscience. It should be abundantly obvious how internally defunct these style of arguments are, against mine; he is literally comparing the author of what is possible, to non-omnipotent, non-omniscient humans. This is why Con has straw-manned my arguments. “…God doesn't stop us from sinning” My opponent brings his own belief (Christianity) into this debate. This is completely unwarranted, and further demonstrates that my opponent has entirely failed to understand my argument, yet alone represent it properly. Con has essentially conceded the debate by continually straw-manning this argument. Again, this argument, since it has virtually gone uncontested, wins me the debate. The resolution reads, “Islam is a religion of terror”, and this argument proves that it is. Other points My opponent’s poor spelling Throughout the debate, my opponent makes dozens of spelling mistakes. Whilst this may seem petty, it reflects poorly on Con’s arguments, and for voting, there is a category for spelling and grammar. Seeing that his spelling is lacklustre, at times, I argue that I should be awarded this point, on the basis of my spelling and grammar being far superior. Have a look for yourself, if you don’t believe me. Keep in mind that I am Australian, and we have slightly different ways of spelling. Here are some quick examples, from my opponent’s work, that relate to both American-English and Australian-English: - Lets - it is anxiety and fear. fighting doesn't. - trangression - apart - If less then a few My opponent should lose conduct for personal insults In the previous round, my opponent called me a liar. Personal insults should never be tolerated in a debate, and he should lose conduct, for this reason. Concluding comments I thank Donald for his challenging arguments; I’ve learnt a fair bit about Islamic texts. I also thank you, as a reader, for reading whatever part of this debate you did. I urge that everyone votes based on what is said in the debate, and not on personal beliefs. I don’t hate all Muslims, in fact I have no problem with the majority. If you’re a Muslim, understand that my opponent has failed to accurately defend your beliefs. Sure, I may be wrong about your religion, but that doesn’t mean my opponent’s arguments are correct. I’ll say it for the final time: he failed to properly address an argument that wins me the debate; this wins me the debate.