Islam is a religion of terror

Premise Rebuttal I: Descriptive and Prescriptive Text.This wasn't an argument. It's a premise. And it's widely accepted in religious studies and is a major part of Linguistics in general (1).1) http://tinyurl.com...Premise Rebuttal II: Definition.Pro has started to play semantics, as I assumed she would. The premise behind the debates resolution is that it refers to the terror I defined, and anyone who recalls how this debate was started will know that it was. Pro says that going to war might bring terror, she is resorting to possibles and maybes, a weak case, if a case at all. By her claim, women are also a creature of terror, and food is an object of terror, as both are responsible for wars through out history.This debate isn't about terror in general. Pro knows that but is extending the playing field and shifting the goal posts in hopes of scoring.Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.Pro has again cherry-picked the whole passage and rewritten it. I will, again, repost it for everyone to see:"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] worship is for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors." Quran (2:190:193)As we see the correct text, it is clear that it is about self-defense. It says to fight those who fight you, which would have been a big deal in Arabia at the time of writing. Later in the text, we run across this: "expel them from wherever they have expelled you..." and this: "And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there." Clear signs of self-defense. It is saying to reclaim the homes you were expelled from, and not to fight until they fight you. Pro literally left out the key to this text. Reread her version and mine. You will find a "..." in place of "And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there." Pro's attempt to cherry-pick and leave out important details TWICE should not go unnoticed.When faced with the definition to the word Al-Fitnah, Pro has again resorted to maybes and possibles. Saying it's possible it could mean disbelief. In context, it clearly refers to invading and removing them from their land. Not once does the enemy not believing come in place in the text. As far as we know, the invaders could be Muslim as well.Fighting =/= Terror. Fighting and terror are different, this is why Warfare and Terrorism are referred to as different types of fighting. Pro is now hiding behind her different definitions, and not facing the original meaning of the resolution. By her claims, self-defense is now an act of Terror. The Quran calls for fighting only in self-defense. Pro is using the words of the text out of context and without their meaning. Pro has only hurt her case by referring to the Islamic conquest of Mecca. If she did her research, she would understand the finer details. In 628 AD, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was signed. The two factions, Banu Bakr and Khuza‘ah, split up between the Quraish and the Muslims. If one attacked, the other could retaliate. Khaza'ah ruled Mecca, and was attacked and massacred by Bakr. Having broke the truce, Bakr was at war with Muhammad. Muhammad besieged Mecca and retook it from Bakr. Muhammad had only kept true to the Treaty and the principles of self-defense.In regards to the last text, Pro gives no rebuttal. She only says it's my opinion, and drops it. There is a clear line between Descriptive Text and Prescriptive Text, The text she brought up is only Descriptive, displaying an understanding of the culture and history at the time, and nothing else.I didn't drop her other texts. I read them all and gave a full rebuttal that I will now repeat: "All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages." Her texts are just like the texts I talked about. Repeating the same line over again would have gotten bothersome. Her texts are referring to self-defense, or are nothing more than Descriptive Text.Rebuttal II: Allah and WomenThis is not a straw man fallacy. It is poor conduct to accuse someone of a fallacy and not explain how it is so. I am referring to the implication behind her text. And I have backed it up with statistics. Pro's accusation claims Islam promotes terror because some Muslim committed terror. I've shown that by the principle, Latino culture promotes Terrorism. Pro's claim is Fallacy of composition, assuming that because some bad examples commit terror, that their religion promotes terror. It's also False Cause and Correlation, following the same principle as to why it is such.I ask Pro how Allah, someone who we ourselves don't believe in, would stop terrorism? Even if we did believe in him, did he not give everyone free will? This is the same as claiming to because the Government doesn't stop you from drinking, they promote drinking. I didn't drop Pro's quote. I acknowledged it, of course, in the Middle East and many places in the world, there is nothing immoral about that quote. Pro is pulling Red Herring. Misrepresenting my case to make it easier to refute. I explained what Islamic law allows. The Quran gives both genders unique rights. the Quran, being written in a time when women had no rights, was quick to allows mention women as well was talking. Also. when a girl was forced into a marriage with a men she didn't love, she went to Muhammad. He went to her family and gave her the option to choose who to marry. She accepted the marriage, but Muhammad was entirely against forced marriages (1). He filled the Quran with text referring to women as equals. In regards to Pro's text, hitting someone is not terror, this is again resorting to maybes or possibles. This assumes that parents whom spank their child are terrorists.2) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal III: Islamic Texts II.Pro has cherry-picked again, and in grave error. She wrongly applies this phrase: "and who have not driven you out from your homes" to claim that Allah says to kill them regardless. If you read my text, you will see this:"Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them..." - Quran, 60:8-9Pro has cherry-picked my argument and used red herring. Pro's conduct is horrendous in this debate.Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.Referring to Muslims as terrifying shows Pro's position against Islam is one of bigotry. While Pro brings up a few who commit terror, I have shown that the majority whom read and interpret the Quran, interpret it as a book of peace, and are widely against terrorism and terror. 61% of Egyptians promote attacks against the US? This is a lie... The whole claim, including the sources. I have visited Pro's sources, they claim no such statistic. This should have been obvious when she sourced everything to the page, expect for these two sources.Pro has no sourcing for her 41% statistic. She claims I said Pakistan approves of attacking Americans by 50%, although I never made such a claim, I, in fact, only used the number 50 twice, neither related to such an argument. I said no Middle Eastern country at all approves of any Terror Group by 50%. The only group that near that is Hamas. Pakistan is 87% against suicide bombings and attacking innocent people (3). Pro also lied in his claim about Palestine. Her sources claims none of these, and I've read the whole thing because it was one of my sources. The source does say Pakistan is 80% against killing innocent people (4).Pro's claim about support for Osama also shows that the support is getting smaller. Pro's source is outdated by a literal decade. Pro's source is just an outdated version of my source, which is the same page and studies, but up to date. Looking at studies just 5 years later, we see Indonesia has a 25% approval rating toward Osama now. 28% is the highest outside of Palestine and Nigeria, both of which are a LOT more supporting of terror than any other nation (5). Pro's Forbes source doesn't defend her. The source is from Forbes, discussing how Bin Laden's and Al-Qaeda's approval rating have tanked.Pro claim about the Israeli family slaughter is unsourced. 32% is low considering Palistine is one of the only two areas that have massive approval ratings towards terrorism. Since one of those is the same nation that approved of Hamas and have a high approval rating towards Terrorism, this only shows that these statistics correlate with region, not religion. Pro's second to last claim of Turkey is unsupported by her source. She has, again made up statistics to win, and lied about her source.Almost every argument Pro made in this section is made up, and the sources never makes their respective claim. This is another example of horrendous conduct, and should also go against her Arguments. She has made her Arguments and sources unreliable.3) http://tinyurl.com...4) http://tinyurl.com...5) http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion: Pro had to lie about her sources and make up numbers and statistics to win. Pro also cherry-picked my aguments and texts numerous times to make them say what they never said.The texts refers to fighting only in self defense, as Muhammad's history with Mecca also shows. The text do not promote terror. Every statistic correlates with area, showing the Islamic approval of Teror is cultural, not religious.