Login/Sign Up




Are islamic revolutions the primary obstacles to world peace?
Politics

mleroux
Jan 12, 2011
12 votes
9 debaters
3
2
1
1


+ Add Argument

3
Islamic revolutions are the primary obstacle to world peace


mleroux
Jan 12, 2011
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes, islamic revolutions throughout the middle east are the primary obstacle to world peace due to the fact that they use violent methods to express their political opinions (ex. 9/11). In addition, they are not able to open their minds to other beliefs, which is crucial to world peace. Also, in countries that witnessed an islamic revolution, ie Iran, two thirds of the population do not have any fundamental rights, such as the rights of children and women. A country that does not give rights to its population is in no condition nor mind set to accept the ideas and concepts that englobe world peace.

The Muslim people who want the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and around the world are indeed a challenge to a new peaceful world order. They will not comply with the standards of other countries that are required to establish world peace. Anything that happens in the world, nothing can induce them to change their pattern of thought and values, this can be understood due to their desire to preserve their traditions and religions. But it is the radical Islamist groups that are the source of the problem.

 
jingo
Feb 22, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
A few thoughts on why Islamic Revolutions are the biggest obstacle for world peace: Currently, Islamic revolutions are the primary obstacle for world peace, but not for the reason that all Muslims are terrorist (which is a highly ignorant statement). It is the biggest obstacle because we as a people are making it so. We, the free people of the world are at war with Terrorist organizations that, for the most part, align themselves with the Muslim faith, but it is not because they are Muslim that they are radicals. It is because they are brainwashed into believing we, the citizens of the free world and the leaders of our countries are responsible for all of there pain and suffering. Just like what Hitler did to the Jews, some highly respected men are presuming that since we do not live and suffer like they do, it is us who are taking away there joy and opportunities for happiness (Hitler, while Germany was in a state of depression noticed that everyone was poor except the people who owned the banks, who typically were Jewish. He presumed that the banks, and ultimately the Jews took this money from the German people and thus used it to convince the Germans that the Jews ruined their lives). Being respected officials in their culture, they convinced the people around them that since we have happiness and freedom, and they do not, we took it from them. What we are doing is categorizing everyone who is of Muslim faith as one of these radicals because most extremists are Muslim. But this is only causing more damage. By placing these stereotypes of Muslims only wanting to hurt in the world, we are placing fear into people's hearts. And as fear turns into hate, it is only natural for people to want to distance themselves from anything they think will cause them harm. As these Islamic revolutions are taking place, people fear that with more power toward people who are openly Muslim translates into more diabolical attacks and chaos. So are Islamic Revolutions the primary obstacles in the world? Yes, but in order to over come this obstacle we need to stop with the fear and hate of a religion and transform it into strength and unity to clear the Islamic name and stop the real problem: the radicals who threaten our countries, our fellow man, and the very things that make us human- our ability to understand. Our compassion, our understanding, our love for ideas and discovery and family and friends and people--these are our gifts, given to us by God so that we may understand and care for each other, so that we may live above the beasts of the Earth, and so that we may live in peace. If we let these terrorists, these demons, continue to take away the very thing that makes us human, then what will become of us? The hope rests on us. We, the people of the free world, to stop the hate and to try to understand one another as human beings. If we can push through the fear and hate, then together as people of compassion, as people of knowledge and understanding, as the free people we are can conquer these demons and send them straight back to the depths of hell from which they came. Side Note: I personally am not Muslim, I am Christian.

 
hiruko
Feb 22, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

While I agree with your principles, I hope you won't be offended if I point out the irony of calling your opponent bigoted and retarded in the same breath? I really don't mean that as a personal attack, I'm just trying to point out that I, and others like me, see using mental disability as an insult deeply offensive, and I'd honestly appreciate it if you took that into consideration.

---

But that aside, are Islamic revolutions the *primary* obstacle to world peace? In a word: No. God no. I don't actually have to list all of the other obstacles, do I?

 
hiruko
Feb 23, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

Wait, I think you misunderstood me. Sorry about that, let me clarify:

I agree with your politics. Go for it, kick ass, I'm 100% with you on this one. I also don't mind sarcasm or clever insults. Especially with an opponent as unabashedly bigoted as this one is (not you, jingo).

The only thing I was taking issue with was the use of the word "retarded" as an put down. Lots of people don't seem to know this, but them's fighting words to most of us with mentally disabled friends and family ... just like using "gay" or "queer" as a insult is a conversation stopper around the majority of those with an interest in gay rights. So I'd personally appreciate it if you'd be willing to, in the future, use a different ad hominem. Is that good by you?

 
hiruko
Feb 24, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

"oh i understand, but retarded have a whole different meaning to me, i mean there are "challenged people", i'd never call a disabled person retarded."

Of course you wouldn't, just that you're willing to hear me out tells me you're probably a nice guy. But the problem is how you see the word "retard" doesn't matter as much as how a lot of the mentally disabled see it.

Most of the ones I know still have "retard" hurled at them by bigots on a pretty regular basis (and a few of the middle-aged ones remember it accompanying threats and violence). So you can understand why hearing a word used for them (and to insult them) also used to mean "bad" and "stupid" feels pretty sh*tty.

To give an example: If I went around using a racial slur as another word for "bad" and "stupid", you would say that wasn't okay, right? And if I said the slur meant something different to me and my friends, and that made it okay to use it as an insult, would anybody buy that excuse?

The word causes lots of people a lot of pain, but costs people like us *nothing* to stop using. And that's pretty much my two cents. Thanks for listening, I'll cut myself off here so I don't sidetrack the debate.

 
+ Add Argument

9
Other causes are the obstacles to world peace


yarrum
Jan 12, 2011
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mleroux Show

Firstly, I would like to point out a few flaws in your argumentation. As far as your specific examples go: "Also, in countries that witnessed an islamic revolution [sic], ie Iran, two thirds of the population do not have any fundamental rights," I wish that you would post a source to this 'two thirds' fact because it seems awfully fishy. I would also recommend that you google the meaning of i.e. because you've used it incorrectly and it detracts from your argument. I also find it strange that you chose to use the word englobe when talking of world peace - the definition being, "To take in by a spheroidal body; said of the ingestion of bacteria and other foreign bodies by the phagocytes" - because typically one does not talk of peace as consuming but rather as freeing of oppressive shackles.

Secondly, Islamic revolutions are not the primary obstacle to world peace. While it is true that SOME Islamic radicals have acted in unethical ways, it is equally true that SOME radical - and even some not so radical - Christians have also acted unethically. A good example of this would be the Roman Catholic crusades of the middle ages. I would also like to encourage you to find and read an article on Christianity in Ireland as well. It is interesting to note not only the differences between Christianity and Islam but also the many aspects that are in fact similar.

But it is not only religion that affronts the rights of others. To quote you, "In addition, they are not able to open their minds to other beliefs, which is crucial to world peace." Although I agree that it is crucial to have an open mind, I can prove that it is not only Muslims that are close-minded. The United States is equally at fault for trying to spread democracy. The policy of 'Containment' was adopted by the US shortly after WWII which led to forceful, economic, and undercutting strategies with the purpose of stalling the spread of communism. Even though this policy may seem dated it is still important in modern political terms. The War on Terrorism is just as easily a War on Communism and other government philosophies which may be considered detrimental to democracy. Through the lens of the Containment policy, the deployment of troops in Iraq is necessary to set up a democratic nation and is a model for the rest of the Middle East. And please keep in mind that the US is not the only country that adheres to this containment belief.

Now, you might argue that democracy is the best government. While I would agree that many aspects of it are admirable, there are also several aspects that deserve attention. Democracy can breed mob mentality because people are easily swayed on the basis of emotion. It is also, like almost any other government, susceptible to corrupt politicians. By saying that all other forms of government, or in this case, that any one religion is the primary obstacle to world peace, you yourself are being close-minded.

Perhaps the real obstacle to world peace is the ignorance and intolerance exhibited by citizens of the world. By trying to blame any specific group of people for the lack of world peace you are effectively stereotyping those people. This is comparable to the basic ideology of the KKK or the Nazi Regime, whom most would agree, contributed greatly to the opposition of world peace. This ignorance to the ideas and customs of Earth's people is precisely what is causing us to fear each other and setting us back. To paraphrase a poem, "Perhaps the way to love and not hate/ Is to see each other through the hours of late/ And maybe once we are all equal and judged right/ Well, maybe just then, we can turn on the light"

 
cmh0114
Jan 16, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mleroux Show

Yes, Christian revolutions throughout the world re the primary obstacle to world peace due to the fact that they use violent methods to express their political opinions (ex. Timothy McVeigh). In addition, they are not able to open their minds to other beliefs, which is crucial to world peace. Also, in countries that witnessed a Christian revolution, ie most of Europe, millions of people died because of holy wars over whose religion was better and over which faction was purer. A country that kills its own population is in no condition nor min set to accept the ideas and concepts that englobe (sic) world peace.

The Christian people who want the Christian revolution throughout the world are indeed a challenge to a new peaceful world order. They will not comply with the standards of other countries that are required to establish world peace. Anything that happens in the world, nothing can induce them to change their pattern of thought and values, this can be understood due to their desire to preserve their traditions and religions. But it is the radical Christian groups that are the source of the problem.

And yes, I can back up everything I've said with solid facts, evidence, and logic. If you don't believe me, just ask.

 
numoic
Jan 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No, I'm Arabic born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and I take offense to what you've said, I'll simply say don't judge 1.6 billion of the world because of 11 people who cause terror in the US, if terrorism and destruction the concept of Islam wouldn't the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world already have taken out most of the US?

Islam in Arabic means peace, there are Muslims who misinterprets the concept of Islam and its religious beliefs, our prophet Mohammed had a Jewish neighbor and incase you don't know Jews are basically the enemies of the Arabs, but what did our Prophet did when he knew that the Jewish neighbor was sick? He brought him food and took care of him.

As for the sexism argumentative, how is it standing against world peace? please elaborate.

 
stof
Jan 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mleroux Show

Well along with the fact that I strongly believe you are the most stupid and retarded person I’ve met so far, you just accused Muslims of being close minded while you are being close minded yourself about islam: you probably have never met a single muslim before and you are making deductions based on something some terrorists did, well I have many muslims friends and I can confirm that all you said is just bullsh*t.
I suggest you start opening your mind first before you start accusing other of being close minded, and you definitely need to start reading stuff and googling things to know stuff just like yurrum said, and maybe you should start by googling the meaning of the world Islam before you accuse a religion of terrorism.


 
gatorsf80
Jan 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
All Religious Revolutions in massive scale create obstacles to peace. In countries that try to find it's religious identity, violence often follows. The bigger the religion, the more radical views from the norm, the bigger the violance would be. It's not also just the religion, it's also the form of the goverment like Bolshevik Revolution in Russian or French Revolution, Or even the Civil War in USA which is about Socioeconomic reasons. I'm not saying religious extremism is not a part of the problem, I'm saying it's not the whole story.

 
jingo
Feb 22, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hiruko Show

At least personally, I know there are many more issues, but today's media, especially people like glen beck, make the Islamic Revolutions seem even more pressing then they should have been to begin with. But since the public believes that Muslims are terrorists, it has become a primary obstacle. For our culture, if we can deal with this obstacle first, it would ultimately further our goals in other branches of the world.
___
PS can some one give me feed back on my first post? I know it is long, but I would like some critiquing.

 
stof
Feb 23, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hiruko Show

I’d never, during a debate, insult someone or use “ironical expressions” that can demean someone unless I judge it is necessary, neither would I use sarcasm unless needed, and in this case it was needed, I wouldn’t allow someone to insult an entire civilization and culture based on prejudice…
It is a fact that places like the Middle East are troubled places and that is a step back in “world peace”, if such term does exist, but a conflict anywhere takes at least ‘two’ sides, and we can’t condemn an entire country or civilization for decisions that politicians make. I don’t think we’d disagree on that would we?


 
stof
Feb 23, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hiruko Show

oh i understand, but retarded have a whole different meaning to me, i mean there are "challenged people", i'd never call a disabled person retarded, because i'll be insulting him, maybe this issue can be solved if everyone agreed to normalize the meanings, for me a retarded person is not a challenged person, way too different ;)

 
stof
Feb 24, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hiruko Show

Maybe this debate should be a proper debate about racism and related issues, just to discuss this, because although I agree in principle I have to disagree about the details.
If I call a challenged person “retarded”, this would be wrong of me, regardless of how the challenged person might feel, I would be feeling demeaned myself, and I’d never do that.
If I call a normal person “retarded”, then it’s purely an insult, I’d apologise if it turns out that I was wrong, but that is not related.
What you are suggesting is non-sense to me, it’s the same like saying don’t use the word “black” because black people feel demeaned of its use, although this is an other debate, that is really worth debating, but not to step far away from the current problem, if I call a challenged people “retarded” then am a bad person because I use it’s disability to insult him, but if I call a guy who says ridiculous, based on prejudice, things, then I don’t really feel uncomfortable doing that.

 
Fook Fazbooc
Jul 29, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Fundamentalist's of any kind, even the non-religious varieties, are the main obstacle. If you automatically stick with what you prefer, no matter the issue, then you risk making bad choices...like burning supposed witches at a stake.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong