Instigator / Con
Points: 45

Are all Arabs terrorists?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 16 votes the winner is ...
Tiwaz
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
10
Contender / Pro
Points: 112
Description
Don't conflate being Arab with religious fanaticism. We are all one human race.
Round 1
Published:
Not all Arabs are terrorists, the way not all white people are white supremicists. Do I take an issue with Islam? Yes, but not all Arabs are Muslims. Arabs come from all walks of life, just like white people.
Published:
One must follow and assign upon themselves the Arab identity to be considered an Arab.

Modern Arabism is entirely anti-american and terroristic.

Therefore, every Arab is a terrorist.




Supporting data and arguments in the coming rounds. 
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
I do not forfeit this round.
Added:
Most of my 44 losses there were also from my issues that I had a hard time controlling though I did pull off some wins in those phases and certainly some of the losses came at opponents who I gave my best and lost to
#32
Added:
--> @Club
Yes it is
#31
Added:
--> @Wylted
On DDO?
DDO is messed up
#30
Added:
--> @Club
No I mean on an actual debate site. I mean public, not live
#29
Added:
--> @Wylted
I'm assuming public means live or in person. It doesn't mean much if you had 300 of them, how many did you win? You can't be reliable. I could say I was Jeff Bezos, but am I? No.
You probably didn't have 300 live debates,considering your too lazy to even write one actual online debate. Or you just got carried by one of your teammates. So mind your own business, and shut up about Wikipedia being reliable.
#28
Added:
--> @Wylted
Public meaning?
#27
Added:
--> @Club
I ha e over 300 public debates. I'm sure you could find one.
#26
Added:
--> @Wylted
I keep picking topics I don't give a shit about and can't force myself to take the effort necessary to make a competent argument. I think I'll jist change accoubts soon and start fesh or leave the site. I forfeit this debate.
You forfeit almost all your debates. I haven't seen one of your debates where you have responded with serious arguments.
#25
Added:
--> @Wylted
It is wrong because people who lived in 2005 are dumb"
No, I'm saying Wikipedia has changed in 14 YEARS
----
I lost 14 debates and you would still be incapable of beating me.
Prove it
#24
Added:
--> @Club
I lost 14 debates and you would still be incapable of beating me.
#23
Added:
--> @Club
There are studies conducted in 1930 that are still considered reliable. Do you have a real argument against it or is this just "It is wrong because people who lived in 2005 are dumb"
#22
Added:
--> @Wylted
If somebody cited me a brief overview of a common thing, I would not dismiss it as hogwash, nor should anybody else. Actually when judging it in a debate, I would not dismiss it either without their opponent giving good reason for me to.
Coming from a guy who lost all 14 of his debates, that's not saying much
#21
Added:
--> @Wylted
Oh yeah, BACK IN 2005.
You should actually check the reliability of every source.
"December 16, 2005 6:29 AM PST"
#20
Added:
--> @Club
I'm overdue for a win
#19
Added:
--> @Club
Literally the first google result but I did the work for you here https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia's opinion about it's reliability is wrong. With obscure topics you should obviously use more caution but using it as just a way to spread general knowledge such as "Lincoln was the 16th president is fine" those topics even when wrong information is put in is quickly fixed so actually seeing a mistake in them is rare. We are also just talking about citing them for a good overview of a subject, you wouldn't want to cite them for the nitty gritty things, especially since they do provide original sources for you that you can dive into.
If somebody cited me a brief overview of a common thing, I would not dismiss it as hogwash, nor should anybody else. Actually when judging it in a debate, I would not dismiss it either without their opponent giving good reason for me to.
#18
#16
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Neither side provides evidence for their claims.
#15
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Tie because neither party was able to produce evidence to back their stances.
#14
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
More convincing arguments - Tied
Neither of you guys really state facts or logical statements. It was mainly opinion based
More reliable sources - Pro
One source is better than nothing
Betarr spelin ad gramerr - Tied
Really no spelling mistakes or grammar issues here
Better conduct - Tied
No insults were thrown, so nothing to mark here
Overview:
There wasn't much to go off, but this one one quote:
"I do not forfeit this round."
Amazing. You deserve the win man.
#13
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF but also wtf
#12
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro stated that he did not forfeit, so he didn't forfeit :P
#11
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Slightly better conduct on pro as he didn't forfeit as many rounds.
#10
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Both sides failed to back their arguments with evidence and both sides forfeited numerous rounds. Therefore I have to leave the debate as a tie
#9
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit
#8
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments.
#7
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
suck my wiggidy dick
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit is bad
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeited less.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Dang con, full forfeit
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit