Debate Info

Debate Score:48
Total Votes:49
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 What are you opinions on the recent Middle East protests? (39)

Debate Creator

BenWalters(1513) pic

What are you opinions on the recent Middle East protests?

Recently, a blatantly offensive, and quite frankly, shockingly bad, piece of media has gained viral attention around the world, due to its deptiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a slovenly, abusive, drunkard (simply depicting the prophet is considered blasphemous in Islam).

This has caused thousands of people to protest around the Middle East. In Egypt, thousands rallied around the US embassy, where they vandalise it, and burnt the American flag there. In Libya, a peaceful protest was taking place, when a small group of terrorists attacked the embassy. They killed three security staff, and the US ambassador died from smoke inhalation. There have also been protests in Iran, Qatar, Yemen, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and probably others.

This has resulted in a large political fallout, both between the US and other nations, as well as within the US.

Presidental candidate Romney jumped onto a statement issued by the US Cario embassy (often percieved to be trying to defuse the situation, and prevent further violence), and rejected their apology for a constituents 'abuse' of free speech.  This leads to a further debate - to what extent should individuals use their free speech, where it could insult others, even cause violence to others?

Add New Argument
5 points

to what extent should individuals use their free speech, where it could insult others,

If people choose to be insulted and can't rise above, then that says more about them than the insulting party.

even cause violence to others?

It is not the insult that causes the violence, strange the way it's always one side that gets their panties in a bunch over "insult" when the opposite side are being lambasted from on high from every media source that is available.

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

If people choose to be insulted and can't rise above, then that says more about them than the insulting party.

But what does it say about someone if they say something, just to insult others? And if they are in full knowledge that the reaction of those insulted could be of potential harm to others? I don't see why both groups can't be in the wrong here.

ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

The point is that if someone wants to incite violence over an image or utterance then they are the sort of people the world can do without.

Most people in the world wouldn't respond like this, and I can guarantee you, like in the scenario of the Danish cartoon that there's a bunch of retards exacerbating the situation to some political end.

The internet in Muslim Shariah countries is heavily censored if even available, the average Joe Muslim on the street wouldn't even have heard about the situation were it not for the work of zealots on the prowl for incendiary material.

3 points

Anyone who causes violence because of being insulted over a public movie is a problem for the world and all society.

A direct personal insult might deserve a slap, but a movie does not deserve death, murder or destruction of property. That is just childish.

Sounds like more of the same from the Religion of "Peace."

Or should that be the Religion of Violent Tantrums?

1 point

Religion of lies and deceit.

I'm tired of their "We agree with science" crap.

To say that they agree with science, then act like savages, yes, SAVAGES, as all people who seek war do is not logical or scientific.

It is primitive and I cannot respect the belief of someone like that.

Their religion has nothing scientific about it, they appear to only claim to support science because of their more mathematical past, and because they want to convert as many people as possible using any method they can.

Unless their religion changes to one of truth and peace, REAL truth and REAL peace, which I highly doubt will happen, they will likely continue to wish death upon others, and destroy things.

And no, I'm not some sort of Hitler. I am speaking only of their religion, not the people.

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

I agree with what you're saying here, but I'm just wondering, do you really think these people are representational of Islam? While the Qu'ran does preach violence in some situations, a proper follower would not have done what was done recently.

Criticize individuals from this, but remember that it was not the Muslim acting here, it was the individual.

2 points

Sweet, so some guys make a film where Mohammad is a savage, violent idiot... and how did the muslims protest? Like savage, violent idiots. Go figure.

1 point

Middle esterners (issrailies excluded) have proven time and time agen that they are nothing but violent ungreatfull saveges and are unworthy of our aid I say we only help issrailies all els cas just stew in there own hattred and filth screw thos saveges

Jace(5156) Disputed
1 point

Oh please, as if every religion and country does not have its own respective extremists and reactionaries. If I may say so, your own view does not seem very open minded, loving, or tolerant.

1 point

He's an idiot, but he has a point. There have been plenty of offensive videos made about Christianity, but you don't see a multitude of Christian nations responding to this with violence, vandalism, and terrorism. So there might be other extremists and reactionaries in other countries, but clearly they all have thicker skin and slower tempers than the Muslim extremists.

1 point

Free speech is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but all rights incur a certain responsibility. You can say what you want freely, but to use that freedom irresponsibly is an abuse of a privilege not enjoyed by many in the world. It disgusts me to see the freedom of speech abused in such a senseless fashion, where the intent of the speaker is not so much expression but the explicit degeneration of another individual or group of people. At the same time, I would not legally opt to restrict the freedom of speech on that grounds because such a law would be extremely subjective and open to abuse; the risks outweigh the benefits. That being said, individuals should get over their ignorance and prejudice, or at least keep it themselves. Vitriol serves no purpose other than the self-validation of insecure bigotry.

As far as the violent protestors, I consider that also to be an insult to activism. To be so provoked by the bigotry of a couple of people that you murder other people who are totally unconnected to the statements by those couple of bigots is not only illogical but ineffective. You accomplish nothing other than pissing other people off and escalating the violence. To be fair, this could also be seen as merely a tipping point following a long history of negative interventions by the U.S. in foreign affairs. However, it also trivializes your own stance which could be quite valid by defining it in association with a rather trivial and juvenile incident.

My take on it is that the Middle East will not have us around much longer to kick around.

China and Russia have been making treaties to bypass the dollar for global oil customers. They began selling oil using their own currency. Any nation in the world that wishes from this point on, to buy, sell, or trade crude oil, can do so using the Chinese currency, not the American dollar.

That is is going to affect your life, your family, and your dinner table more than you can possibly imagine. So much so that we may need military rule to hold it all together. the-legs-out-from-under-the-u-s-dollar/

So..., I guess that once we go away, the Middle East will have to deal with the Russians and the Chinese. I'd like to see how that works out for them :)

The video was offensive,true, but you can't blame the video or it's creators for the violance that followed. There was once a artist who created something called "Christ in piss" which was the picture of the cruxifix in a bucket of urine. This greatly offend pretty much every christian person around the world, but there was no killings or raids because of it. Relgious offense is no excuse for the crimes that were committed, and it only hurts the image of the islamic culture, which is unfortunate because not every muslim is like these fanatics.

1 point

If more than 90% of the total terrorist group in the world are from a single religion, we must think over it n stop acting like that we r not racist or very nice n should clear ask that religion to check what's wrong with you guys there is something seriously wrong written or understood by u guys that's creating the whole problem

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

Now, are you using your links as a justification of something? If so, I can bet the argument is self defeating.

GeneralLee(134) Disputed
1 point

1. You do realize that Muslims aren't a race of people, right? Muslim is the term given to the followers of Islam (a religion). So no, we aren't racist for discriminating against them.

2. What in the world are you trying to say? Here is the best I could do:

More than 90% of the total terrorist group in the world is from a single religion. We must think over it and stop acting like we are not racist, or clear up any ambiguity with that religion and ask, "What's wrong with you guys?" Because there is seriously something wrong, either written or understood, by you guys that's creating the whole problem.

I mean seriously, did you flunk out of first grade? Do you even know what you are talking about? I doubt it. You can't even type what you are trying to say.

"Did you really think I was so stupid that I wouldn't recognize a run-on sentence?"

-Grammar Nazi

1 point

Here's something interesting. According to CNN, the "movie trailer" was actually a short film made by Al Qaeda in order to stir up anti-American hatred. LOL BenWalters can't even get it right he is so blinded by religious prejudice.

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

First of all, I will ask for a source for that claim. Looking on CNN, I can find this article, which talks about the origins of the film. Now where does it attribute this the al Qaeda. Secondly, I found another article which said that the attacks in Libya were done by members of al Qaeda.

Secondly, I would contest that a single article on CNN is far from conclusive proof on such a provocative and emotional issue. The truth will take a long time to fully emerge, yet what you are saying seems unlikely, from what I have read.

Finally, why the fuck do I have religious prejudice? You are making yourself look like an idiot, please make some intelligent, and well thought out comments, and we can talk like grown ups.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

"First of all, I will ask for a source for that claim. Looking on CNN, I can find this article, which talks about the origins of the film. Now where does it attribute this the al Qaeda. Secondly, I found another article which said that the attacks in Libya were done by members of al Qaeda."

Here is where I found the claim. True it isn't probably a reliable source, but I just wanted to see the trailer not learn it's origins. I probably should have done better research.

"Finally, why the [email protected]#k do I have religious prejudice?"

Here, this debate; it seems like you have a personal bias towards Muslims. Sorry for coming on a little strong there, but for reasons I don't want to make public, I got some beef with Muslims. So I apologize for overreacting.

My opinion is: I don't care.

1 point

Yet more killing and malice of innocent people because of religion. Whats even more all religion, it seems to me, teaches peace and is against the killing of innocent people, yet these extremist ignore all that and defend their god by doing so. Don't get me wrong to insult ones faith is wrong, insensitive and ignorant, but to demand to ignore our freedom of speech or blood will be shed is straight up arrogance and sinful pride. I am sure that no matter what god one believes in, the bombing of embassies and the killing of human beings for what reason holds no place in his or her god's heart.