..My friend at school, we'll call him Anna, has disagreed with me for the past four years about a certain subject. It's his opinion that we should drop nuclear (or atomic) bombs on the whole of the middle east, and kill everyone there. He believes that if this happens, there will be no more Islamofascism. I beleive that it would be a terrible idea. For the reasons that:
A) There are Islamofascists spread all throughout Africa, and in western Europe. We would have to blow Africa and Europe up too, and in my opinion,that risks destroying the world, basically.
B) Radical Islam is an ideology. A religious observance, An Idea. If you don't get where I'm going, it's Intangible. Ideas spread, and as quickly as you destroy it in one place, it will spring up in another. (My friend implicitly conceded this point, I'll get to it later. )
C) It could possibly make the situation worse. They already beleive that we're infidels, and need to be conquered by Islam because of our immorality, and take Christianity as the source of this. If the U.S., a country they beleive is totally Christian were to attempt to blow them all up, this would fuel the convictions of any and all survivors. So what happens when you have several million crazed religious lunatics assured that you want to kill them, and their own convictions are that you yourself need to die a violent and painful death? You should be able to aswer that.
D) Anna posits that in blowing up the middle east, we destroy the root of the problem, and that all radical Muslims everywhere else in the world will die out completely. I have two counterexamples : Christianity and Nazism. Of those, Nazism serves as a better counter example.
Anna says that just like going into Nazi Germany destroyed Hitler, and thus all Nazism, and dropping an atomic bomb in Japan destroyed Communism, dropping a bomb on the Middle east will destroy radical Islam. Problem: There are still Nazis and Communists around.
True, Nazi are not as vocal, and have less power, but they still exist. Especially in America with the Neo-Nazi/Skinhead movement. Arguably, if we don't do something about that, as disorganized as Neo-Nazism is, it could get worse.
Following that logic, instead of obliterating radical Islam, we could just end up spreading it round the world in factions that are not usually known to the general public.
E) Anna also conceded to me that dropping a bomb on the middle east may not be justifiable. Actually, he told me it wasn't justifiable. In truth, his entire argument for his case seemed to be based on Appeals to Emotion and Strawmen of my position. I tried to explain that he was using logical fallacies, and that these don't help to prove his case, just ruin the discussion. He told me that not everyone thinks the same way I do.
He then interjected a new argument: Either you're for dropping a bomb to end the conflict, or you're a pacifist who does'nt want anything done. I'm not a pacifist. I don't like them. I despise pacifism in all it's forms, because pacifists are no more logical then he, they just go to the other extreme. Note also the False Dichotomy.
Anna and another friend of mine the begin to call me Stupid, Dimwitt, and other such names of a more, um, explicit nature. I confess, at that point I was so angry at his lack of logic that when he called me stupid a fifth time,I told him that I though it was him and his non- arguments that were stupid there.
At which point, we agreed to disagree because the lunch bell rang, and it was time to go to gym.
I learned to important things from this debate:
1) It's fruitless to debate with someone who admits that their position is unjustifiable, yet still holds it, and debates using logical fallacies and refuses to admit that using them is wrong.
2) If I ever debate him again, I will have him begin by stating his position. That way, he has to justify his, and if he counters by telling my to justify mine instead, I call him out for shifting the burden of proof. :D
*EDIT*: I'll probably regret posting this whole debate soon :D
