CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
35
Let I.S, run amok Terrorism must be delt with.
Debate Score:60
Arguments:53
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Let I.S, run amok (19)
 
 Terrorism must be delt with. (18)

Debate Creator

Winklepicker(1020) pic



The U.S.A. should change it's foreign policy to avoid Muslim terrorism.

I've heard an American female politician asserting that the F.B.I, were to blame for the Orlando massacre because they didn't circulate their ''SUSPICIONS'' about the Muslim murderer to every gun outlet in the country. So, it's the F.B.I's fault. That's rather strange reasoning. She also bellowed on about how American foreign policy will have to change due to the fact that a % of American Muslims will shoot and bomb the length and breadth of the United States. So, do you think that the threat of Muslim terrorists should decide the Country's foreign policy or should Muslims be corralled into special zones with strict restrictions imposed on their comings and goings? 

Let I.S, run amok

Side Score: 25
VS.

Terrorism must be delt with.

Side Score: 35
1 point

Are you banning all arguments on this side that you do not like? I'm seeing a point increase, but no arguments.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
Winklepicker(1020) Clarified
2 points

Even though you've just answered your own question by posting a comment/question in this section I will answer by stating, most definitely not, I've never banned anyone from expressing their viewpoint, nor barred anyone for being critical of my opinions. Such small minded tactics are the reserve of Islamic states where you can be sentenced to death for making anti Islamic or anti government statements. When you're unsure of you religious or political dogma then you will find it necessary to ban or stifle criticism through fear tactics.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
2 points

Well said, and I totally agree. I also wonder where the "score" comes from??

Side: Let I.S, run amok
2 points

They tried banning guns in France and it just made terrorism a stronger threat. We could have destroyed ISIS while it was much smaller under Obama. Why didn't we? Lets say we let in as little as ten thousand Muslims, and we ban guns (assuming the terrorists will get guns anyways like they did in Paris). Now out of all 10,000 Muslims, 100 of them are terrorists. Do the math. It took eight terrorists to terrorize the city of Paris, just because no one had guns. On the other hand,

In the wild west, when everyone had a gun, it was possible for people to go after criminals. Yes, its true, the adventurous cowboy is a myth. But people would go in large groups with guns and go after criminals quite successfully. Why? If you put a team of ten people with guns against one guy with a gun, that guy won't have enough time to shoot more than two or three of them by the time they have three or four holes in their head by the other seven or eight. One gun can only fire in one direction at a time. It only requires each person to have very little training in gun usage, not to be a professional sharpshooter/sniper. This strategy works, by comparison to Paris.

See my logic? We should allow guns and stomp ISIS out. In fact, I think part of stomping ISIS out is giving everyone guns because its proven to work in areas of the world in time periods where police can't do their job. That's usually society's solution to crime in those areas of the world and it does give you a higher chance of victory.

But even outside of that we need to ramp up our military and give half the US population effective guns and it will become much harder for ISIS to attack us because if a killer walks into a crowd of 100 people, they'll kill ten with a machine gun and 20 more will already have fired at them by that time and it will limit the damage. And that's on a bad day. But more importantly, we need to make some rules that might be a little racist, but I don't care.

Anyone who appears Middle-Eastern who walks into a shooting gallery needs to be questioned. Banning Muslims from coming to America is a temporary solution. How will terrorists kill people if they can't come here in the first place? That wouldn't make any sense, other than the ones that are already here. We also need to spy on Mosques and the FBI needs to do it by going in and acting just a little bit menacing and giving the members of a Mosque an Indian burn, making them give any information they have about future terrorist attacks and arrest anyone who conspires to do anything immediately, as soon as we have good evidence that someone will shoot anyone. Or whoever is about to commit acts of terror should be banned from buying a gun by way of some sort of terrorist blacklist. That should diminish these attacks over the course of a couple of years because it will become progressively harder for it to happen. I don't see how we can have the same number of attacks via Islamic terrorism a year after such legislation is brought into effect. Just saying "that's what ISIS wants" is fine, but that only matters if it doesn't work which sounds unlikely to me.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.

I agree with all you say except that the banning of guns in France didn't make terrorism worse, but it certainly didn't make it any more difficult for the filth to obtain them. Gun laws in the U.K, are extremely tight but even so the I.R.A., filth were able to procure all the weaponry and explosives they so desired. It is a ''dangerous'' red herring to suggest that banning guns will stop, or even reduce terrorist incidents which we are seeing over most western nations. The more sensible thing to do is to ban the problem at source, i.e, Muslims.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

Alright but the point was people got guns anyways so there is no way to ban them effectively and all that would happen would be most people won't have guns but people who disobey the law will and they'll do more damage. It might matter which gun someone has in comparison to someone else but if you only allowed citizens to have handguns then the criminals will get assault rifles which is out compete the citizens. Everyone needs to be allowed to have any gun they want to buy so it can be fair. Then we can have variety and if anyone has the form the criminal has the shooting won't work anymore because three people out of the crowd that have an equally good gun out of three hundred people, some with better assault weapons and some with just handguns, would make it very hard for that one person to kill people before they were quickly neutralized by someone with a similar form of gun.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
AlofRI(3275) Clarified
1 point

So far there are VERY FEW "lefties" that have ANY wish to "ban guns".

The second amendment is an antique law based on antique weapons at a time when todays weapons were unimaginable. It needs to be updated, not abolished. If it is not, the numbers of objections to it will increase as more and more lose friends, children, wives and husbands. It doesn't take too much imagination to visualize that! (Far less than our founding fathers visualizing an assault weapon capable of a thousand rounds a minute). Remember Dodge City? Tombstone, El Paso, etc.?? Everyone carried a gun, (almost). People got sick of the slaughter! What's that saying? "If we don't remember our history we are bound to repeat it!"

Want to REALLY lose OUR guns? Get "WE, the people", pissed off!

It will NOT be a President, either left OR right that will take away OUR guns, it will be stupid inflexibility and blindness!

Side: Let I.S, run amok
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

But did everyone have the same assault weapons that the criminals had in Dodge City, Tombstone, or any of those other places? History shows when you give people an equally powerful/just as good gun they are able to quickly neutralize the criminal. I think anyone should be allowed and encouraged to buy any gun they want, even military grade and train in it if they want to. This would make it much harder. I do admit your argument made me want to update my argument but it is the same general point nonetheless.

Side: Let I.S, run amok

What the exact solution is, I don't know, but I think the powers that be need to ditch that touchy-feely, don't want to hurt someone's feelings, kumbaya mentality that blinds them and deal with the Muslim problem in a realistic manner. Otherwise, we will go the way of Europe who is hopelessly mired in denial of the powder keg they're sitting on.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.

France is now reaping the disaster for the blind stupidity of the liberal policies of it's past and present left wing loonie politicians. In Germany, where Angela Merkel opened the floodgates to Muslim immigrants, the jails are now crammed full of Muslim criminals for crimes ranging from rape to violent street robberies. Merkel has intimated that she is not keen to serve out her full term in office. Typical politician, make the mess, then cut and run. Needless to say the ranks of the pro neo-Nazi groups have been swelling enormously since her act of eye-watering folly.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
2 points

Merkel has intimated that she is not keen to serve out her full term in office.

Not exactly.

Some people close to her think she might step down to vie for European Council President or Secretary-General of the United Nations - not exactly a cut and run...

But, others say she is not likely step down at all:

"Merkel's spokesperson and party colleagues have denied speculation about how long she would stay in office, according to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph newspaper.

"Far from everyone is convinced that Merkel is likely to cut short her time in office, with Nicholas Spiro, managing director of Spiro Sovereign Strategy, saying she was the "least likely" of the European political leaders to stand down."

Her party "received a ringing endorsement from voters in last year's elections, when she promised to serve a full term, winning 311 seats for the CDU party and a bigger share of the vote than in 2009." (An increase of 72 seats)

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/14/germanys-merkel-could-step-down-early-report.html

Side: Let I.S, run amok
2 points

France is now reaping the disaster for the blind stupidity of the liberal policies of it's past

Those darn French with their far fewer murders...

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime/ Violent-crime

Side: Let I.S, run amok

France is now reaping the disaster for the blind stupidity of the liberal policies of it's past and present left wing loonie politicians. In Germany, where Angela Merkel opened the floodgates to immigrants, the jails are now crammed full of Muslim criminals for crimes ranging from rape to violent street robberies. Merkel has intimated that she is not keen to serve out her full term in office. Typical politician, make the mess, then cut and run. Needless to say the ranks of the pro neo-Nazi groups have been swelling enormously since her act of eye-watering folly.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.

Seems to me that the repatriation of all 1st and 2nd generation Muslims along with all those Islamists whom the security forces suspect of being involved in or likely to be involved in acts of terrorism against the United States of America is a better option than bowing to the filth. ''If thou eye offends thee, pluck it out. Ridding the Nation of the cancer of Muslim terrorism must be a priority for the next administration. Let the loonie lefties start their civil rights crusade by bellowing on about how inhuman such a plan of action would be. I am of the opinion that this massive undertaking will have to be embarked sooner or later throughout all the western nations. Rudyard Kipling's observation of ''EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS WEST AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET, is a true today as it was then.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
3 points

Where do you repatriate the people who were born here?

Side: Let I.S, run amok
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
2 points

Considering he's a white supremacist, my guess is his answer is segregation.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
1 point

In the same way the Australians do. Entitlement to American citizenship is a privilege regardless of how many generations your family have lived there and should be treated with great respect and not be taken for granted.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
Winklepicker(1020) Clarified
1 point

Their immigration records will provide details of their different countries of origin, so it to there they should be returned. Where records do not provide this information then they should be corralled into secure zones designated exclusively for Muslims. In these districts the movements of Muslims could be monitored more closely with special permits required for any proposed travel outside their own districts. All Muslims involved in international travel should be required to complete an information document which should include;- their name, U.S. address, their date of birth, the address(s) they will visit during their trip. Other background information will be necessary. Muslims should have dedicated check-in sectors at all airports and be subjected to increased security checks. No Muslims, even security personnel should be exempt from these enhanced security measures. For 30 years ''EVERYONE'' travelling to a from Northern to mainland U.K. were subject to the aforementioned procedures, so why not Muslims.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
2 points

ISIS sure loves folks like you, reacting exactly how they want, giving them exactly what they want.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
1 point

Ah no, not you back again with your repetitive parrot like squawking. Instead of squawking why don't you present your proposals for removing the ever present threat of Muslim terrorism. Well come on there 'Captain Flint' squawk up. I would guess your plan would be to roll over and surrender to the filth then ask questions afterwards.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Shut Up with the Progressive Talking Points !Radical Muslims look at you as the Infidel if you are to stupid to understand that you deserve what you get !

Side: Let I.S, run amok
AlofRI(3275) Clarified
1 point

....and "until the twain meets," nothing will change. I'm for a "meeting". We've had enough "hatings!"

Side: Let I.S, run amok
1 point

Someone such as you must realize that approaches for conciliatory talks for the purpose of trying to find common ground and identify the differences between the both sides have been made on numerous occasions, especially by the liberal European Leaders. All such efforts of an olive branch have been thrown back in their face usually accompanied by another atrocity. Please note from history that appeasement doesn't work. Such moves are interpreted by the filth as a sign of weakness and emboldens them to commit further outrages. Somewhere along the line we are going to have to recognize that we are in the middle of a vicious war of ideologies and the filth sure aren't the ones who are going to back down. The so called I.S, don't want any reconciliation. Their declared goal is to impose their brand of Islam on the world. Everyone, including the dogs in the street, and, believe it or believe not, the great orator himself, Mr,(yes we can), Obama.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Why can't your Progressive politicians protect the LGBT from Radical Muslims ?

Side: Let I.S, run amok
1 point

.....and it IS being dealt with.

The foreign policy problem that should have been changed was the one that took us into Iraq ... for OIL! To late for that now! We have to do the best to correct the mess we made by following, and putting faith in, a President (and Vice President) with an over active ego and hubris! (I'm going to show "dad" how he SHOULD have done it!). Too bad, it didn't work and it's difficult to turn around. We WILL do it, eventually .... if we dump Trump!

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.

I agree with you re., George Bush Jnr. I too could just hear him say, ''hey Dad, I'm going to finish what you started''. However, regardless of the reasons and setting the ''blame game'' aside, we are where we are and the ever present danger to American and European citizens will have to be resolved one way or other. Within the past 24 hours a French senior police officer was stabbed 46 times and he, along with his partner have died in what the authorities there have described as an act of Muslim terrorism. The Muslim filmed the atrocity and posted it live on facebook. During the murder he was seen deliberating whether or not to kill the child. Although the child is in a state of deep shock fortunately he is otherwise safe and well. Muslim terror atrocities are becoming daily occurrences and, as it was the politicians, past and present, right wing and left wing who created the problem, then it is up to them to sort their own mess out. I cannot believe that Hillary Clinton is continuing to insist that she will permit 100,000 Muslims into the U.S.A, every year. Is she totally mad?

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
1 point

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/12/10/whistleblower-says-he-could-have-prevented-ca-attack-if-government-didnt-cut-funding

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/whistleblower-feds-shut-down-terror-investigation-that-could-have-prevented- san-bernardino-attack/

Its not being dealt with, or at least not properly. I'll bet this happens consistently with a large percentage of shootings and we as people just aren't being told. Or do you not agree or deny this as evidence?

Side: Let I.S, run amok
1 point

Time has come to bomb the Muslims into submission ! Kill all the Sandrats till they come out waving the White Flag ! Then kill those waving the White Flag !End the threat !

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
rukluk Disputed
4 points

LMMFAO ! You basement keyboard warriors are worried about such NONSENSE !

Side: Let I.S, run amok
AlofRI(3275) Clarified
1 point

Like Dubya did?? How's that working out fer ya! Before you jump on Obama pulling our troops out you should remember he was only following up on Dubya's "treaty", which included the stipulation that, after that date American soldiers would be considered criminals for killing an Iraqi!

You can't "bomb the Muslims into submission" without killing those Muslims that are NOT combatants! THAT would (again) swell the ranks of ISIS and aim hatred at all Americans! (smart??). Don't look now, but, ISIS is smiling at you, they love ya!

Side: Let I.S, run amok
1 point

I think that woman and children should be let into America and they should simply block out the guys. This will have several benefits:

1) Woman and children (under the age of 8), are rarely the causes of terrorism.

2) Without girls, extremists cannot reproduce, and will die off with time

3) Girls are gossipy and will talk and communicate to westerners about their different cultures and consequently help ignorant Americans get a better understanding of other cultures without the extremism.

4) More man power = more room for development

5) Girls tend to go into teaching, nursing and healthcare. Having a people resource boom in these areas will allow us to be more selective of the people and thus improve standards and reduce costs by cutting out people that are bad.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
1 point

I disagree, children grow up and could easily be radicalized, as we've seen. With all due respect your comment about woman Muslims being allowed in displays a high degree of naivety. Woman, whilst less likely to be involved in terrorism can, and do commit acts of terrorism. THE WIFE OF THE ORLANDO MUSLIM TERRORIST STATED SHE TRIED TO TALK HER HUSBAND OUT OF HIS KILLING SPREE. HAVING REALIZED THAT HER ATTEMPT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL SHE SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE AUTHORITIES OF HIS INTENTIONS. BY NOT DOING SO SHE WAS/IS ''COMPLICIT'' IN THIS HORRIFIC TRAGEDY.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
Ignoramis(381) Disputed
1 point

There will be outliers, like with everything. However, 98% of killers and extremists are men. Consequently, this statistics means that a woman who belongs to a terrorist group is less likely to become a killer than the general population.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370014/cruelty-gun-free-zones-john-r-lott-jr

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/gun-free-zones-why-not-disease-free-zones/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-mall-of-america-terrorist-threat-perspec-0225-20150224-story.html

Read any two of those three articles and you'll see what most people who want to ban guns don't get. Terrorists have more prey in gun free zones and only two shooting since the 1950s have taken place in places that aren't gun free zones. Every other shooting since the 1950s has happened in a gun free zone. Meanwhile one other person with a gun besides the terrorist is all of takes to neutralize the terrorist so long as they have at least as good a gun as the terrorist and if each person in the crowd has only a little bit of skill, then the terrorist will be quickly neutralized. This has happened in Isreal and the US, among other countries before. It just isn't portrayed very much ever in the media but there are records, which means its a fact that somehow it can work and with the number of lives it saves is more than banning guns will save because banning guns won't be effective, like we saw in Paris.

Side: Terrorism must be delt with.
1 point

As a measure to reduce terrorist related massacres banning guns would be as helpful as yodelling up the canyon.

Side: Let I.S, run amok
AlofRI(3275) Clarified
2 points

I would point out that the number of Americans killed by terrorists is only a small fraction of those killed by OTHER Americans with guns.

I am NOT a "take away all the guns, very far left liberal". I am and have always been , a gun owner. I AM one who wants to "take away" assault weapons before American radicals get into carrying them on the streets! I pay taxes to allow the police to carry, not to have them "outgunned"! A radical is a radical no matter WHAT flag he wears or WHAT religion he follows. If the amount of money Americans spend on guns was invested in our law enforcement, it would be difficult to get past them!

The NRA, and "friends" has countered any thoughts of THAT by instilling a fear of their own government in Americans stupid enough to listen to that hogwash!

Side: Let I.S, run amok
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

My articles weren't supporting gun bans. I was saying what people who do want to ban guns don't get

Side: Let I.S, run amok