The Wahabi is the most evil faith in existence today.

Strategy in rebuttal : ("Argument" -Rebuttal) Rebuttal: 1. "Instead, I will focus on the main parts of my argument and reinforce them. "-PRO. - Even if I have already rebutted and destroyed them? 2. "Again, with the semantics. Even if you agree with my opponent, I don't think I should lose the debate based solely upon this. I did make the debate in anger at the injustices in Saudi Arabia. When your angry you don't always choose your words perfectly. "-PRO.- Then say all of your arguments opposite, and bring this excuse.3. "The credibility of the Islamic texts are key to my argument, which I've already shown. If the Islamic religious texts are incredible, then we can only look at the actions of the dwellers. The religious texts then become of minor or no relevance. I've already shown via mainstream science that the likely hood of God existing is extremely low. Which obliterates the credibility of all twenty five of the Islamic prophets and religious texts. "-PRO.- Already rebutted. If Donald Trump is a Christian racist, Christianity=racism? Another observation. PRO changed 'three prophets' to '25 prophets' Poor PRO. He's debating a religion he knows nothing about!4. "Think about it, if God doesn't exist then what is religion all about? Morals? We have philosophy for that, why add all the rituals and piety? Besides wouldn't it be immoral to pass on false beliefs? What justification do we have for all the holy wars and crimes committed in the name of religion if God doesn't exist? None, we have no justification for the crimes committed in the name of religion. This impacts back to the resolution, because the evil deeds committed by followers of the Wahabi faith/religious movement cannot be mitigated by religious texts as my opponent tries to do. "-PRO.-A red herring. God exists or not should be another debate. 5. " Therefore, I have proven that this is not a red herring. "-PRO.- Just saying that you have doesn't mean you really have.6. " The question remains can Islam or any branch of Islam, in this case Wahabi, take the blame? Can we hold a religion accountable by the actions of its followers? "-PRO.- FIrst you say you've already answered this question, then say it still remains?7." Yes, regardless of how highly your value or don't value a religion's religious texts, ultimately actions speak louder than words. There are many words within a religion. Can anyone honestly state they have read every religious text within Islam? I doubt many have if any. There are exactly 320,015 letters within the Quran. Quran letters: 320015 lettersQuran words: 77439 wordsQuran verses: 6236 versesQuran chapters: 114"-PRO.- Actions are more than words. If nobody has read every text within Islam, has anybody seen every action by Muslims??????!!!!!!!8. " Many of these words contradict themselves. There will always be dispute over the interpretation. Though some passages are more explicit than others. "-PRO.- No proofs, no evidence, no examples.9. "Instead, we must look at the actions of the followers and laws of the nations who follow the belief. "-PRO.- Two things, firstly: Saudi Arabidoesn't follow the Wahhabi rules entirely. Secondly: Donald Trump.10. " My opponent unsuccessfully attempts to thwart a major part of my argument by labeling it as a red herring. My argument remains as follows, God doesn't exist, therefore all the Islamic prophets are false, annihilating the credibility of Islamic religious texts. Therefore, all that remains is the follower's actions."-PRO.- No proof or evidence that " God doesn't exist, therefore all the Islamic prophets are false, annihilating the credibility of Islamic religious texts."Conclusions:My opponent's vague arguments were like this:R1: Full of accusations without any proof, and a randomly choosed YouTube video about racism in Saudi Arabia, which doesn't follow Wahhabism entirely. R2: Accusing me of having red herrings in my arguments, when there are none. Mixing between 'faith' and 'religious movement', then accusing me of playing semantics!! Then accuses Islam of having contradictions in it's texts WITHOUT PROOF.R3: Vague defence, and "focusing on the already rebutted 'main' parts of his argument and reinforcing them'I REQUEST ANYBODY SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH TO JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT'S ORIGINAL BELIEF.I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION.Thank you,Adil,Qatar.Sources:http://www.debate.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.debate.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://english.stackexchange.com...https://www.quora.com...