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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Democrats do support Muslim terrorist
The Democrat media can’t help but fawn over the now fallen leader of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. First, the Washington Post described him as an “austere religious scholar” instead of a brutal terrorist who beheaded Americans with knives while they were still alive.
Now, it would seem NPR was also on the cheer leading bandwagon. During a round table discussion lead by NPR host Lulu Garcia-Navarro, NPR reporters Greg Myre, Tamara Keith and Daniel Estrin discussed the death of Baghdadi, and couldn’t seem to hold back their reverence for him.
Particularly Myre, who called the late ISIS head a “real leader,” and spoke glowingly of his accomplishments.
Who would have thought that Democrats are in support of terrorism and the Religion of Islam.
He did something or led a movement that we had never seen before. ISIS had tens of thousands of members, fighters coming in from all over the world. They controlled massive amounts of territory in eastern Syria and western and northern Iraq, controlled several big cities – Raqqa in Syria, Mosul in Iraq – millions of people under their control. They administered cities. They collected taxes. They had this incredible online recruit presence in terms of spreading propaganda, recruiting followers. So this is a guy that sort of just emerged on the scene. I mean, he had a history but was not – you know, in 2014 is when he really sort of exploded on the scene and led this group that had done something we’d never seen before.
The Democrat is praising a terrorist and not surprising at all.
I criticize all terrorist groups............................................................................................................................................
Ever heard that saying? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?
When they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan packaged the Mujahideen as "freedom fighters". They were heroes fighting for their homeland against the tyranny of Soviet Communism. But when they turned on America after the Bosnian War, they suddenly became evil terrorists.
Remember what I said last night about politics being a game of seizing language and wrapping it around your own ideology? No better example.
I should have said that differently. I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, the way not all Christians are terrorists.
I wasn't criticising you. I was just pointing out that "terrorist" is a word without a clearly agreed upon definition. Most of the time it is little more than a form of smear used upon perceived enemies of the United States. If we consider the most obvious common denominator of purposefully killing civilians, then why were the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima not considered the worst acts of terrorism in modern history?
Fair enough. I can see your point. Some people might argue that I'm a terror supporter because I'm prochoice, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Leave me alone. I hate you.....................................................................................................................................................
Leave me aloe. I hate you.....................................................................................................................................................
I was talking to Atrag, not you. You don't know what he did........................................................................................................................................................
you would like to fuck a microphone but i am afraid this is not possible from your mommies basement. a government provided dildo shall suffice for the socialist.
That makes a lot of sense...............................................................................................................................................................................
The right to have a religious outlook and practise some ceremonies isn't the same as supporting Sharia Law itself. Sharia Law is much closer to Republican values than Democrat values.
If you are referring to a conspiracy theory that Bin Laden wasn't really killed, then perhaps you are more highly informed than me. Personally, I do not know or care if the 'guy' died truly in that event or simply was blackmailed into redundance. The endgame is that he's out of the picture.
Venn Diagrams, Ramshutu. Labradors, dogs, housepets, canines. You're trying to do a fallacy or two and you know what you're doing so I won't spell it out for you.
Do you think that continuing to call me Ramshutu will change the factual reality that I am not Ramshutu? Because it appears that is exactly what you think.
Labradors, dogs, housepets, canines.
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my?
You're trying to do a fallacy or two
You wrote the words buddy. Are Conservatives terrorists or not?
I do not take offence to the way you trick others and leave intentional breadcrumbs for me to you being Ramshutu. I take it as a Moriarty-to-Sherlock sort of nod that recognises me to be your intellectual equal.
I would like you to quote me saying what you're accusing me of saying. The quote you bolded in the former message was not me saying it.
I do not take offence to the way you trick others and leave intentional breadcrumbs for me to you being Ramshutu. I take it as a Moriarty-to-Sherlock sort of nod that recognises me to be your intellectual equal.
It is the highest compliment to know I have brought joy to the life of someone as perpetually miserable as yourself.
You bring joy to my life because you are insane and it's funny reading your insane conspiracy theories. Like the one about how I'm "perpetually miserable" and the one where you repeatedly accuse me of being some random guy called Ramshutu. The reality is that you're funny because you're an idiot. You're so much of an idiot that you think being an idiot is a compliment.
You don't have the right to say someone deserves to be raped. That is a hate crime, not free speech.
To claim that anybody deserves to be raped is intended to provoke reaction. The statement is designed for shock value. It is a textbook troll and what trolls generally want is attention.
But just imagine...
What if the goal wasn't attention, but persuasion?
What if someone changed that language to persuade other people that you deserve to be raped?
What if they distorted language to the point that they could successfully create an argument about why you deserve to be raped and, through it, convince other people who might previously have believed otherwise?
And what if they had a lot of money? What if money wasn't an issue to them at all? What if they could splash this new argument about how you deserve to be raped across every billboard and television screen in America?
Now you have arrived at the fundamental problem of free speech.
There is kind of an unwritten understanding in the US that free speech is an inherently "good" thing. But it isn't. Free speech is entirely neutral. You can use it for destruction every bit as easily as you can use it for construction.
Agreed, but what is the solution? I fall in the middle on speech, not wanting to be extreme. Some of my Christian beliefs are considered hate speech when I express them even with tolerance, but I don't want to take things too far, and be like Westboro, who bullies people, and sues, when held accountable for their hate. This is an analogy. I don't want to be an extreme censor, or an extreme hate speech artist. True story: I watched a news report here in America of a teen girl who told her boyfriend to kill himself, and he did. When she was charged, her lawyers cited free speech. I don't believe anyone has the right to say someone should kill themselves. The suicide rate is too high, and telling someone to kill themselves, is a hate crime. Ideas on how to be fair to both sides?
Damn good question. The polar alternative is obviously worse, and it becomes difficult to restrict speech in any capacity because of it. It could be that there is no solution in practical terms. Over in the UK we have a law about anything (including speech) which is intended to "alarm, distress or harass" another person, but this again can be abused by people claiming offence for ridiculous reasons. A completely imperfect solution if the very law designed to stop you harassing someone else can itself be used for harassment.
In fairness I think we're only looking at half of the problem anyway. The other half is that what gets heard is generally related to who has the power, and in a free market economy that's the guy with the most money. Hence, we hear a lot of Rupert Murdoch's views through his media empire (Fox News etc...) but not that much about Joe Bloggs' views who cleans chimneys for a living. The point I'm trying to make is that free speech is not really free speech in the first place. Not if you have to pay to be heard. That's kind of the opposite of free speech.
Some of my Christian beliefs are considered hate speech when I express them even with tolerance, but I don't want to take things too far, and be like Westboro, who bullies people, and sues, when held accountable for their hate.
Yeah, I understand. I think the problem ultimately comes down to the simple fact that, whatever you believe, you're going to piss somebody else off by believing it. Hence, when you say things which reveal those beliefs to others, somebody else is going to take issue with it. Did you know that even Mother Teresa had haters?
True story: I watched a news report here in America of a teen girl who told her boyfriend to kill himself, and he did. When she was charged, her lawyers cited free speech. I don't believe anyone has the right to say someone should kill themselves. The suicide rate is too high, and telling someone to kill themselves, is a hate crime. Ideas on how to be fair to both sides?
Yeah, that's interesting because it's exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking about when I write about the dangers of administering an "anything goes" policy on speech. Groups of teenage bullies harassing their school colleagues on Facebook until they kill themselves. It has happened plenty of times in the UK. We usually arrest and charge them for that over here.
I think the law here is on the right track, but like I said it becomes a problem when some people feign victimhood to get others in trouble. The only idea I have is to introduce similarly broad legislation and then scrutinise each individual case carefully over time in an effort to refine it. It's like the murder law. It must have been tempting at first to just create a law which says you're not allowed to kill anybody, but then cases will have hit the courts in which it would be clear the defendant acted in self-defence, or perhaps wasn't mentally competent enough to understand what they had done. Over time the law was improved to allow for such cases, which I think is the same approach to be used with free speech. It should be considered a legal right until X, Y or Z.
He did something or led a movement that we had never seen before. ISIS had tens of thousands of members, fighters coming in from all over the world. They controlled massive amounts of territory in eastern Syria and western and northern Iraq, controlled several big cities – Raqqa in Syria, Mosul in Iraq – millions of people under their control. They administered cities. They collected taxes. They had this incredible online recruit presence in terms of spreading propaganda, recruiting followers. So this is a guy that sort of just emerged on the scene. I mean, he had a history but was not – you know, in 2014 is when he really sort of exploded on the scene and led this group that had done something we’d never seen before.
