There will be a Total World War between the Judo-Christian and Islam worlds within the century.

My opponent's resolution implies that he is arguing that religion will cause World War 3, but there is nothing explicitly stated in his opening argument that says this. In fact, he can very well argue that World War 3 (a fancy term we will use to refer to his hypothetical total world war) will happen due to, perhaps, political reasons, and will simply INVOLVE the Judeo-Christian and Islam countries respectively at polar ends. Effectively, he can refer to religious terminology as mentioning it, not using it. The concept of mentioning terms, not using them, happens many times among racial words. For example, anthropologists have already given an official statement basically saying that race is not a biological construct, but rather a social construct. However, many scientists still use racial terminology in their studies, but they won't use it (in the sense that people are biologically separated by race), bur rather mention (in the sense that you gotta have a word to use for describing demographics of people). This may seem tedious and irrelevant, but this is a very possible route my opponent can use. HOWEVER, there is a major catch if he does: it's going to be balls-aching hard. If he were to argue that World War 3 will happen due to political reasons, they he will have to give very convincing reasons for why EVERY country he listed will be on the side he states, and why they won't go on the other side or simply not be a part of it. For example, if Kazakhstan were to not be involved with World War 3, then I will have won this debate. For him to argue that this war will happen due to other reasons besides religion will be quite the task. HOWEVER, even if his only viable route is to argue religion will be factor that pulls Islam against the Judeo-Christian worlds, he will still have the difficult task of explaining why every country will be involved (as he has listed). If, as stated before, I can show that one country won't, then I have won this debate. Do note that neither of us can accurately predict if this will or will not happen. At best, the debate should be judged on who argued best for their respective side. With that horrendously long introduction over, I shall now refute his arguments: ========= Con Claims: The two religions are historically incompatible. ========= Yes, it is true that in history many religious wars were caused between the clash of Christianity and Islam. However, this is the 21st century. Despite what our opinion of religious people are now, we as a whole have advanced quite a lot. Many places such as Dubai[1], a prominent Arabic country, are much more culturally diverse. There is much more tolerance in this world than there was before, and this should be noted. Despite the animosity between many Islams and Christians, it would be taking a very large stride to say that we will have an epic world war because of this. ========= Con Claims: Muslims do not currently desire peace ========= While it is true that there are Islamic extremists, their numbers are DEFINITELY not a majority. In fact, in many Muslim countries even the numbers of Muslims who support Osama bin Laden is decreasing, something even "dramatically"[2][3]. ========= Con Claims: Islam is spreading and becoming as powerful as Christianity. ========= Islam is spreading, but it would an enormous error to say that every Muslin is going to be an extremist. As stated in my previous argument, support for extremism (even in predominately Muslim countries) is declining and cultural diversity/tolerance is rising. ========= Con Claims: Both sides have the potential to win ========= Yes, many countries such as America are starting to have a growing foreign oil dependency. But according to the EIA, "the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U. S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U. S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. [4]" While several years isn't much, do realize that this is a TOTAL WAR. As my opponent has stated in the comment sections, this war will be a catastrophic one. If it really is a World War, then the U. S. (and definitely Europe) will not resort to diplomatic if their oil reserves are threatened. I mean, just look at the countries my opponent has listed. America? Britain? France? Israel? Russia? Australia? These are very well developed first world countries, and in this case, Judeo-Christian countries. Now look at the Islamic countries. The Middle East? Armenia? Turkmenistan? ?? Does anyone even know the last country listed? No, you know why? Because if the Islamic worlds were to go head on with the Judeo-Christian worlds, they will get militarily r*ped. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was quick and successful. The US, being the most powerful military in existence, would probably have no trouble taking on every Islamic world right now without any assistance. But you give them the aid of the Russians and Brits? God d*mn it man, it's a massacre! We have F-22 Raptors and B-2 stealth bombers, and they have old Cold War era planes. We have nuclear missile silos and submarines, and they have RPG's that blow up in their face half the time. We have M1A1 Abrams tanks and they have hand-me-down tanks from the old Soviet Russia. We have Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarriers, and they have tugboats. Do you really think the Muslims will try to have a full scale campaign? ========= My Argument: A substantial reason for Muslim attacks stems from anti-Americanism, and their intended methods differ from total war ========= My opponent has cited the "jihads" as being causes for Muslim attacks, and that's true. However, what he doesn't realize is that they do not intend to have a full-scale war against Western powers; even they realize that this will be futile. Instead, they are attempting to make themselves look like matrys, and effectively, are trying to push for a movement of anti-Americanism[5][6] rather than a military campaign. ========= My Argument: How do you know every country listed will engage? ========= CON lists countries affiliated with the "Judeo-Christian world" and the "Islam world". I ask of him - how does he know each of these countries will engage? What if one of them decides to not engage? Because if that is so, then this debate is mine. It if therefore my opponent's HEAVY burden to show why there will be such a massive movement to include every country listed. ========= Conclusion ========= While there is genuine animosity between Christians and Muslims, my opponent over exaggerates this division. This is the 21st century, and we are seeing how Samuel P. Huntington's ideas of "civilizations clashing"[8] are becoming archaic and old. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. . http://pewglobal.org... 4. . http://maps.unomaha.edu... 5. . http://130.182.123.66/tempfiles/tmp204/Anti-Americanism10.pdf 6. . http://130.182.123.66/tempfiles/tmp204/Anti-Americanism10.pdf 7. . http://130.182.123.66/tempfiles/tmp7339/1.pdf 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org...