CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Liberals never have any actual answers or strategy for most of our problems.
They are fixated on one goal and one goal alone. TRANSFORMING AMERICA TO ANOTHER SOCIALIST EUROPEAN NATION LED BY THE UNITED NATIONS.
They don't worry about such mundane problems as terrorism, 20 trillion in debt, loss of moral values creating broken families with no fathers raising their children, etc., etc.
These things help usher in their Big Government control of the people. Their answer is to replace fathers with case workers. Their answer is to keep printing money until our banks collapse. They have absolutely no understanding of debt spending and where it leads.
They actually think they can give every American a free lunch and free healthcare from cradle to grave, and mysteriously the money will just be there. There are not enough rich people in the world to fund their social programs yet they keep creating bigger government.
For my entire life, every time the GOP tried to merely cut the rate of growth of our social programs, the Democrats screamed like spoiled children always crucifying repubicans for supposedly hating the poor.
Not letting them in sure makes it difficult for them to attack, but that still doesn't completely rule out terrorism. And what about all those people who are not terrorists?
What is the best way to kill cancer? To not get it in the first place. Or if you already have it, surely you don't continue to ingest the things that feed it. And if you have it with force, you use radiation therapy to destroy all of it and some regular cells become colateral damage. The point?
1)Quit letting any of them in if we can't see which cells are cancer and which are normal cells.
2)We don't know that they aren't all cancer cells. With the principles of taqiyya and muruna and stealth jihad, we can assume they all plan on practicing those techniques as issued in Islam, and are not obligated to a group of people who's holy texts are an open decleration of war on our people and our culture.
Not rational in any way, they aren't cancer cells, they're human beings, there's a lot of difference
1)It's an analogy that uses a common sense example to show how to stop something that is destructive. You cut it off.
2)I'm not "generalizing. I've read the Quran, Sunna, and the hadith, and watched their sermons from their very own mosques on their very own sites. It isn't pretty. If it was 1940, and they had swastikas stitched to their sleeves would it be okay to oppose them or do we just say "some Nazis might be good people" and allow them to continue the Holocaust?
I'm not "generalizing. I've read the Quran, Sunna, and the hadith, and watched their sermons from their very own mosques on their very own sites. It isn't pretty. If it was 1940, and they had swastikas stitched to their sleeves would it be okay to oppose them or do we just say "some Nazis might be good people" and allow them to continue the Holocaust?
You look at it with a context that you believe is true, which isn't necessary..
Nazis were people with a certain idealogy which to all of us, is morally wrong.
that isn't the case with muslims, where the majority doesn't involve in terrorism..,
It's an analogy that uses a common sense example to show how to stop something that is destructive. You cut it off
of course I did. because it was a terrible analogy..
cancer cells can't change themselves, but human beings can..
You look at it with a context that you believe is true, which isn't necessary..
No. Ex Muslims say the same thing.
Nazis were people with a certain idealogy which to all of us, is morally wrong.
Hitler got the "Nazi salute" from Islam and used burning people alive because it's in Islamic eschatology. He was allied with the Grand Mufti, and the Nazi SS was composed of Muslims.
of course they will, isn't it obvious? and that doesn't make any point when we are talking about a whole community.
Hitler got the "Nazi salute" from Islam and used burning people alive because it's in Islamic eschatology. He was allied with the Grand Mufti, and the Nazi SS was composed of Muslims.
Nazis used the swastika, does that mean hindus today are terrorists?
Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party.
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4]
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n* with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5]
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.![7]
And if we continue to let them in and it gets worse and worse can we cut them off then, or do we continue to say "not all Muslims are terrorists" and watch our civilization, people and buildings be destroyed based on some ignorant principle that we thought made us feel good about ourselves? And if we look back, after it's all destroyed, would our children and grandchildren simply have the right to ask, "why did you let them keep coming in?" Shall we just wait until all hell breaks loose and 9/11 looks like child's play, or should we do something about it now, while we still have the ability to?
And if we continue to let them in and it gets worse and worse can we cut them off then, or do we continue to say "not all Muslims are terrorists" and watch our civilization, people and buildings be destroyed based on some ignorant principle that we thought made us feel good about ourselves? And if we look back, after it's all destroyed, would our children and grandchildren simply have the right to ask, "why did you let them keep coming in?" Shall we just wait until all hell breaks loose and 9/11 looks like child's play, or should we do something about it now, while we still have the ability to?
I am in no way supporting the idea to let in terrorists, and letting them destroy anything they want. with so many people working on anti terrorism, with so much security involved, you just have to come up with a more efficient way, not letting the innocent of the community be affected.
I am in no way supporting the idea to let in terrorists
All jihadists are Muslim and from certain Muslim countries. Trump banned from those countries. Liberals went bonkers. So what's YOUR plan to keep out the terrorists, cross our fingers and hope for the best? Good intentions don't save lives. Pragmatic action does.
It is not my job and there are better people than me at this job, as I have mentioned earlier, there has to be a better way.
There isn't. That's why you can't come up with it. You defeat cancer by not getting it in the first place (haulting immigration from these countries), or by getting rid of every cell that might be cancer.
It does if all Muslims follow Islam and the Quran. Are you claiming most Muslims aren't devout despite them all praying 5 times a day without their shoes on towards Mecca, all making the Hajj, and all sacrificing live animals at Hajj? They look pretty damn devout to me...
If followed in the right context, which I suppose many people do... , it isn't the quran which causes the problem, people make interpretations of what they want things to be, that's why we have these terrorist groups, who have their own ideologies and use religion in a context they want to lure people.
Are you claiming most Muslims aren't devout despite them all praying 5 times a day without their shoes on towards Mecca, all making the Hajj, and all sacrificing live animals at Hajj?
that was never the claim made, just another interpretation made by you, the way you want it to be... the claim was as simple as saying majority of muslims aren't terrorists.
They look pretty damn devout to me..
sure, they are, pretty committed.. that doesn't make them terrorists.
it isn't the quran which causes the problem, people make interpretations of what they want things to be,
No. It says to kill us. No interpretation needed. All Muslims are looking for the Mahdi (Islamic messiah) to slaughter every last one of us and rule the entire world under Islam. You can read the Quran and listen to exMuslims and Imoms online.
that's why we have these terrorist groups, who have their own ideologies and use religion in a context they want to lure people
Muhammad made ISIS look like amateurs. He slaughtered tens of thousands, took sex slaves as spoils of war, demanded the genocide of all nonMuslims, especially Jews, and conquered much of what is the Islamic world of today. He moved with brutal force and was a mass murdering psychopath. In the Quran his own wet nurse declared he was demon possessed, he claimed his angelic guest in Medina was a demon, and he claimed "Satan tricked him into writing false revelations. Google it.
Were you beside him? did you see this happening? I am not willing to take account what's written by any other person, and that too centuries ago, which talks about "events" that we cannot verify.
If Christians, Conservatives, or Whites practiced Islamic practices, liberals would crucify them and rail against them, calling them crazy, animal abusers, misoginysts, and homophobes.
Things in the past weren't so like things today, there weren't liberals at that point of time, and even if there were a few, It's obvious that they were suppressed. That leaves us with the conclusion that conservatives were in control back then. so, even if you say that islam supports terrorism, it is due to conservatives.
Not really. You are assuming the majority of 2 billion Muslims don't take the Quran seriously. That would be hard to believe seeing their extreme practices.
you said it is humanly not possible to know 2 billion people. And you want to generalize for all the muslims being jihadists. I don't see how that goes well.
Assuming all people who follow quaran are terrorists is mindless
Not when the Quran commands terrorism. The words "strike terror into the unbelievers" is a common phrase in the Quran. You should read it sometime. Go for the hadith next. It's even more dangerous, more vile, and more disgusting. The Quran literally commands you to beat a disobedient wife. Google it.
Not when the Quran commands terrorism. The words "strike terror into the unbelievers" is a common phrase in the Quran. You should read it sometime. Go for the hadith next. It's even more dangerous, more vile, and more disgusting. The Quran literally commands you to beat a disobedient wife.
wait, what do they call this?? hmmmmm...
conservative mentality, in it's extreme most conditions.
conservative mentality, in it's extreme most conditions
1)There's a difference between conservative and extremism.
2)Doesn't this very statement say something to you. By your very admission, you are not conservative, yet defend and ally politically with a group that is all the things you are against, only more so...
There's a difference between conservative and extremism
I wasn't talking about extremism there.. I was talking about the extent to which conservative ideas can go.
Doesn't this very statement say something to you. By your very admission, you are not conservative, yet defend and ally politically with a group that is all the things you are against, only more so...
Defending my ideologies doesn't make me a conservative.
Defending my ideologies doesn't make me a conservative
It's one of 2 things.
1)Orwellian doublethink
Or
2)An "unholy alliance. Meaning the left has literally allied with a group of ultra conservatives to oppose moderate conservatives.
It would be like us allying with far left SJWs to oppose moderate liberals.
It is like the dwarves allying with orcs to defeat the elves in the Lord of the Rings.
It's 2 groups with a contradiction of worldviews in an alliance.
Islam is anti feminism, yet in a political alliance with feminists. Islam is anti gay, yet is allied with gays. Islam is anti nonMuslims, yet in alliance with those who preach tolerance.
The common ground of the 2? Get conservatives out of the way of their agenda. Both want their worldview to reign supreme on the Earth, and Conservatives are the only thing in their way. The problem is, once we vanish, Islam will slit the throat of liberalism. What is happening now in America was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Wow.. please get this fact straight. There are many people who call themselves as leftists, but that doesn't necessarily make them leftists. To fall under the category of the left, you need to fall under the definition.
It's not my fault, that people vote for someone, it's completely their choice and I have nothing to do with that. Irrespective of who it is, a person would be a liberal only if he/she falls in the definition. I don't care about how many fall into that category
you said it is humanly not possible to know 2 billion people
It was impossible to know all Nazis. We still considered all Nazis to be our enemies. Islam is Nazism on steroids, but with a god, which makes it even more vile and more dangerous. We can read the Quran to enter the heart and mind of Islam, and the Quran promotes a cult of oppression and death.
It was impossible to know all Nazis yet we considered them as enemies, similarly, I am considering majority of the muslim community of not being terrorists.
So our greatest survival instinct is fear/discernment... and you think suppressing fear/discernment towards a group that committed 99%+ of terrorist bombings in 2015 (450 of 452) is wise (cue crickets). The Orwellian doublethink is strong in this one. Tell me if the cognitive dissonance begins kicking in...
So our greatest survival instinct is fear/discernment... and you think suppressing fear/discernment towards a group that committed 99%+ of terrorist bombing in 2015. The Orwellian doublethink is strong in this one. Tellme if the cognitive dissonance begins kicking in...
All I said was to come up with a better plan. You seem to keep forgetting that..
All I said was to come up with a better plan. You seem to keep forgetting that
Make immigrants take classes on our culture and general customs and take an oath to the United States. If you aren't dedicated to America, adios. If you have a criminal record, adios. If you are in any way connected to terrorism in any subtle way, adios. And that would apply to Muslims and non Muslims alike. We owe them nothing. It's a privelege to come here, not a right. I would adhere and adjust to Chinese customs and laws if I went there. It's the foreigner's job to adjust, not the host.
2)The Quran promotes terrorism. All Muslims consider the Quran sacred and inspired by Allah.
wrong context. just the way you want it to be, always
I don't want it to be a book of psychopathic rage. It simply is a book of psychopathic rage by no effort on my part. You're welcome to read it some time. You'll love the scenes in the cave of Medina with the demon and the story of Aisha the six year old bride and lover... I digress...
sure, they are, pretty committed.. that doesn't make them terrorists
Being committed to a book that promotes death and violence towards infidels... makes you committed to death and violence against infidels. Whether you commit the act or not doesn't tell us anything about whether or not they would in an us against them scenario. Islam is a brotherhood. Your moderates would watch ISIS kill you in the street without batting an eye.
Being committed to a book that promotes death and violence towards infidels... makes you committed to death and violence against infidels. Whether you commit the act or not doesn't tell us anything about whether or not they would in an us against them scenario. Islam is a brotherhood. Your moderates would watch ISIS kill you in the street without batting an eye.
assumptions over assumptions, just the way you want it to be.
the ones you call ex- muslims are ex-muslims for a reason. It's obvious they had a similar perspective as yours.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali had her clitoris cut off, her partner was murdered by Western Muslims, is under constant death threats by Western Muslims, and was forced to wear the covering against her will and is now an atheist. We aren't really similar except that we call psychopathy...psychopathy. We aren't blind or stupid. That's about all we have in common.
That's what you think, that the problems have ended. The consequences of such a move have never been thought about. To any muslim man, this whole idea shouts "we have problems with muslims, not just terrorists".
you just have to come up with a more efficient way, not letting the innocent of the community be affected.
We've let people into the country that we thought were the "innocent of the community", and either they killed us, or their homegrown terrorist children killed us.
We've let people into the country that we thought were the "innocent of the community", and either they killed us, or their homegrown terrorist children killed us
again, this is a generalization.. as "innocent people" refers to the ones who are not involved in terrorism.
Hand wringing accompanied with their standard flow of meaningless condemnations such as, ''this is an outrageous atrocity''. '' Innocent civilians, including children were specifically targeted''.
''We must all remain calm and permit the Muslims to blow us to smithereens and/or cut us in two with heavy automatic weapons'' without too much fuss''
While the political filth are spewing out their feigned and sickening words of sympathy they're holding the door open for the continuing influx of 100s of 1000s of dedicated and potential Muslim terrorists to enter the western nations.
The Muslim perpetrator of the Manchester suicide bombing was the son of a Libyan family of refugees who were given sanctuary in the U.K.
Unfortunately the radical steps needed to even address ''THE MUSLIM PROBLEM'' never mind resolve it will, as a consequence of the liberal bleeding hearts brigade, never happen.
At sometime in the future, and only after a lot more 'bloodletting'' the bullet will be bitten and the repatriation of Muslims back to their beloved homelands will commence and of course the total banning of Muslims. Rudyard Kipling got it right;- 'East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.
He'd forgotten about the liberal filth.
To a greater or lesser extent every western politician has blood on their hands and should bow their heads in shame.
See Enoch Powell's ''rivers of blood speech'' ( he never used those words) and how his prudence and words of wisdom were pooh poohed by the liberal elite.
The liberal filth excrete their verbal diarrhea about 'all Muslims are not terrorists'
Using that 'non argument' as a rationalisation for permitting their continuing presence among us is akin to people being asked to accept the injection of a serum which contains a % of cancer cells as most of the solution is non malignant.
As we saw in Northern ireland as the protestant population was being bombed to Kingdom Come there was a deadly backlash which would have resulted in all out civil war had it not been for the professionalism and even handedness of the security forces.
If the elected politicians do not take decisive action to rid western societies of the Muslim plague, other, more sinister forces will emerge
from the ashes of Muslim terrorism and do it for them.
It's simple.. On 9/11 we were attacked by a rag tag bunch of terrorists who got lucky.. Instead of declaring WAR, we should have sent in Special Ops... That's what they're for.. They do the job very well. They would have ENDED Al quaida..
But, our WARS have made it worse.. Bout a 1,000 times worse.
I don't disagree with the premiseof your statement, but the fact is, that Islamic eschatology is very anti "us". And many Islamic terrorists want to and plan on attacking the West as many times as they can and with as much devastation as they can. Many of them are "home grown" terrorists. At what point do we have the right to shut off immigration from this part of the world in order to protect ourselves?
It's HARD to say which mistake, in a cascade of mistakes, that brought us to present day..
I don't believe shutting down immigration solves anything.. I think it's just one more mistake in the barrage of mistakes that we made, and continue to make..
Please explain to me how cutting off the group that ISIS is infiltrating is a mistake. Please explain to me how Asian countries who essentially take in no immigrants is a logical mistake.
