Islam is a religion of terror

Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.Dropped by Pro.Rebuttal II: Allah and Women.Having dropped the whole of this Rebuttal, Pro sticks with the claim that because Allah doesn't stop terror, he must then want it. I have explained the fault in this argument many times before. Pro's argument assume Allah 1) exists, and 2) gave us free will with the intentions that we'd use it wrong. Allah would have given us free will with the intentions of us using it correctly, and hoping no one misused it. But he punishes those who misuse it, sending them to hell. While for a Muslim, the idea that Allah exists is easy to believe, but it's not a very good argument when the person arguing with it doesn't believe in Allah.The Quran preaches to respect your parent. Allah demands we respect our parents. So he wants us to, but we still disrespect them from time to time, so does he want us to break his commandment as well? The argument makes no since.Not stopping something from happening =/= Wanting something to happen.I wouldn't want my child spending $500 on an Xbox One, but I won't stop him (assuming it's his money.) Pro's 'winning argument' just doesn't apply logically. Besides, if we don't believe in Allah, then claiming Allah wants something because he doesn't exist to stop it is being fallacious.Rebuttal III: Islamic Texts II.Dropped by Pro.Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.Dropped by Pro.Rebuttal V: Voting Points.My spelling is a minor issue. Granting S&G isn't for whomever has the slightly better spelling, as that's completely irrelevant to the debate. S&G only counts if the person's spelling and grammar is bad enough to hurt the voter's ability to read, as a punishment for not taking responsibility for one's writing. Since bad S&G can make arguments hard to judge and interpret, for the reader and the opposition. Pro is only able to bring up 5 examples at of 30,000 characters (a possible 5000 words.)As for conduct, saying my opponent lied about her sources and statistics isn't poor conduct. Especially when she did in fact lie. Saying someone lied isn't the same as calling them a liar. While it's implied, it's not the same. One is a direct attack against the person, while the other targets the falsehood of the arguments (which is a serious issue that should be brought up). I never attacked Pro with the word liar.If Pro wants to discuss Conduct, we can review hers in Round 3. I, however, will stay on track. This is a debate about Islam, not a debate about the other person.Final Defense.Pro dropped both of my Arguments (Islamic Text II and Culture v. Religion.) Pro also dropped her own Argument (Islamic Text I.) Pro dropped everything in the last Argument remaining in order to discuss how, since Allah doesn't (exist to) stop terrorism, he must then want it. Logic that is highly fallacious and doesn't apply well to almost any instance of the situation happening in real-life. Pro resorted to trying to win Conduct and S&G, and make the unsupported claim that I never actually tackled her claim. Her best argument was Argument I: Islamic Text I. I have proven how each and every text she listed was cherry-picked and excluded historical and cultural context needed to understand it. Conclusion: Islam's texts are misinterpreted by Pro, and does not promote terror. As the data in Rebuttal IV: Religion V. Culture shows, the tendency to lean towards terror correlates with location and culture, not religion.Islam is not a religion of Terror.Thank you.