Resolved: An Islamic Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero.

Clarifications: When I said that "if the builders choose to build it, it is not religious tolerance for Muslims", what I meant is that America will not show tolerance if the builders are building it against what America wants. If America does not approve of the building, it shows that America clearly does not approve of tolerance. I will provide evidence later that the majority of Americans are actually against the Islamic Cultural Center. When I said "Since the majority of the American people are against the Islamic Cultural Center, building it would mean going against the will of the American people" I NEVER said that we should move the Islamic Cultural Center solely because the majority of Americans are against it. This is a dangerous assumption that my opponent made. What I meant is that the fact that the majority of Americans are against it proves that the majority of Americans do not approve of freedom of religion shows that Americans do not support this religious tolerance and thus building it will not show any religious freedom or tolerance. PRO CASE Rebuttal to Contention 1: I NEVER said the Imam choose this location to purposely offend others. This is another dangerous assumption my opponent makes. I said that this is how many Americans are viewing the Islamic Cultural Center because the Imam chose the location purposely near Ground Zero. Thus, this negatively affects Muslim Americans and their images and actually is causing some people to associate peaceful Muslim Americans with terrorism. Furthermore, the hate mongering that my opponent brings up will only INCREASE if the Islamic Cultural Center is built, whereas it will decrease if it is moved. Rebuttal to Contention 2: While my opponent falsely equates showing respect to 'assuming guilt', the truth is that any guilt falsely put on Muslims is because of stereotypes of Muslim Americans as terrorists. The best way to remove this guilt is to prove that this stereotyping is untrue by showing that Muslims are a peaceful and loving people who respect others. While the burden should not be on the Muslims to prove they are different, the sad reality is that society will not accpet them as peaceful until they prove it to society. My opponent says that I have no citation to prove that the majority of Americans are against the building of the Islamic Cultural Center. I apologize about that and will provide some here. According to an August 10 Fox News poll, 64% of Americans thought it would be wrong to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center so close to Ground Zero, and 30% felt it would be appropriate. [1] A CNN poll conducted August 6 2010 found that Americans opposed the Park51 project by a margin of 68% to 29%. [2] My opponent says that Christians tend to be more opposed to the Islamic Cultural Center making this likely a 'deep seated religious prejudice'. However, he is making an assumption based off of the evidence that he has NO WAY of proving. This is almost like stereotyping Christians. Rebuttal to Contention 3: Just because they choose to go to that location, does not mean that there is not any prayer space anywhere else. There are more than 30 mosques in New York. According to a quote in my original case, these Muslims do not need prayer space. This is merely a political statement. Furthermore, assuming they do need prayer space and this center will provide sufficient prayer space (please prove that), why does that prayer space have to be located right there? Rebuttal for Contention 4: Can you find me proof that the builders of the Islamic Cultural Center are being threatened? While I realize that these threats may violate their First Amendment rights, my case never advocates these threats. The resolution questions whether the Islamic Cultural Center SHOULD be built. In the best interest of protecting these people, I believe it should not be built in the best interest of safety. One of thr comments on this debate refers to Gandhi, and moving this would be like what Gandhi did: fighting violence with peace. CON CASE Contention 1: Do you concede that it is insensitive to non-Muslims who died on 9/11? Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world." [3] My opponent argues that it is not insensitive to the Muslims that died that day. However, if it is not insensitive to those Muslims, yet it is sensitive to other non-Muslims, then why shouldn't it be moved? For my opponent's point to be valid, he needs to find evidence that moving it is insensitive to Muslims, not that building it is NOT insensitive to Muslims. Furthermore, I never equated a building with a radical extremist ideology. I merely stated that this is what many Americans are doing. Contention 2: Although, this argument may be seen as 'speculative', it is plain and simple logic. Will building an Islamic Cultural Center more likely heal or hurt interfaith relations? It is quite unlikely that building ONE Islamic Cultural Center will cause a sudden rise in interfaith dialogue or understanding. It is much more likely that building one will show Muslims as a deaf group that do not care about other people. On the other hand, building it will prove that Muslims are people who are compassionate and loving enough to care about others and consider their feelings. Even if I provide no evidence, I challenge my opponent to logically refute this argument. Contention 3: My argument is that building the Islamic Cultural Center will prevent this violence from happening. The fact is that the best way to stop this violence is to take away its cause. My opponent argues that this is a violation of their rights and thus should not be considered. Is this the reason why it should not be considered? Will building an Islamic Cultural Center fix these problems in any way? I realize their rights may be violated but I don't think asserting their rights is enough ground for allowing crime to continue while it can be easily prevented. THE RESOLUTION ASKS WHETHER AN ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER SHOULD BE BUILT NEAR GROUND ZERO. MY OPPONENT SEEMS TO CONTINUALLY EMPHASIZE THAT MY REASONS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO FORCE THE BUILDERS TO MOVE THE ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FEW REASONS CAN FORCE THE BUILDERS TO MOVE THE ISLAMIC CULTRUAL CENER. HOWEVER, THE CON POSITION ONLY ADVOCATES THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE BUILT NEAR GROUND ZERO, NOT THAT IT MUST NOT BE BUILT NEAR GROUND ZERO. THE REASONS I PROVIDE ARE MERELY REASONS WHY THE BUILDERS SHOULD VOLUNTARILY MOVE IT, NOT WHY OUR GOVERNMENT OR ANYONE SHOULD FORCE IT TO MOVE. Questions: Although I have a right to make myself drink an excessive amount of alcohol and impair my judgment and thinking, does that mean I should assert this right on a daily basis or that I should consider the negatives of this right before excercising it? Should hate crimes against Muslim Americans be viewed as something that needs to be allowed in the name of rights or something that should be prevented in the name of caring about ohers? If the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists is such a big problem in America, should we add fuel to the fire or heal the hatred? What is the best way to make this happen? What is ONE tangible benefit this can offer Muslim Americans (besides asserting their rights)? Thus, I urge a con ballot. In case I have not made this clear, I do not necessarily support the con position on my personal beliefs. The purpose of this debate is to foster education and understanding, and thus I do not necessarily endorse any statement that has been made in my case. [1] http://www.foxnews.com... [2] http://www.nydailynews.com... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...