@diplomat:

I am curious to know how the organisers would handle it if Turkey and Israel met in the final. Further more, the prepared motion for that debate is truly outrageous - even without recent developments:

"THBT Israel should be obliged (if necessary by force) to withdraw from all Lands acquired since 1966."

I kid you not...

Could the Israeli team end up proposing that?

Yes, of course. Once in the final, it will be a random selection for Prop & Opp.

Mind you, we are asking Israel to give us a friendly spar if we make the final and they don't. I reckon they should know the arguments by now.

@Flashman: it would be really interesting to hear them argue that propose that one. If opposing I suggest they might deploy an argument along the lines of "who, us? these lands have been ours for centuries ...."

BTW was 1966 a typo for 1967? has World Cup fever gripped your brain?

The nation is responsible, diplomat61, to admit that, in their past, they committed a genocide. The Turkish government actively denies that an Armenian genocide ever occurred. They are lying, they have been lying for a long time, and genocidal behaviour is not welcome in the EU.

If you are English, it is clear you only want the Turks to join the EU to ultimately destroy it. Now I understand why you're pushing so hard to ruin the EU. Let me know once you switch to the Euro and then we can talk about who should be in the EU or not.

How exactly would Turkish membership of the EU destroy it? If anything it will be a great boost to the EU by helping to kill off the idiotic idea of ever increasing political union. The more the EU expands, the more diverse of opinion it becomes, and the chances of a unified policy on anything remotely controversial all but dies. With luck this will leave us with the happy ideal of a simple free trade block of nations with strong independent outlooks bound together by a healthy spirit of cooperation.

"The nation is responsible, diplomat61, to admit that, in their past, they committed a genocide. The Turkish government actively denies that an Armenian genocide ever occurred. They are lying, they have been lying for a long time, and genocidal behaviour is not welcome in the EU."

So if they actively deny a genocide took place, what good is their word saying they suddenly acknowledge it? It seems like they would just lie about their acknowledgment to get the EU to accept them, with everyone knowing in their heart of hearts that it didn't *really* happen. Words are meaningless. And the only way to back words -- with action -- is unavailable, given that the current Turkish leaders didn't commit the genocide.

"If you are English, it is clear you only want the Turks to join the EU to ultimately destroy it. Now I understand why you're pushing so hard to ruin the EU. Let me know once you switch to the Euro and then we can talk about who should be in the EU or not."

slippery slope fail is fail

''slippery slope fail is fail '' This = ­Win

Lol, this is why I dislike arguing on these boards, and most boards in general. Ignorance reigns supreme.

The EU represents western ideals like women's rights and secularism. Turkey is known for neither, despite being "officially" secular: "About 99 percent of the population is registered as Muslim, mostly Sunni" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion). Sorry bro, I really don't need Europe more Islamicized than it already is. Then again, if Turkey manages to ban burqas, then I wouldn't be so opposed.

So, Turkey, admit to the genocide and ban burqas and then I won't mind if you enter the EU.

"How exactly would Turkish membership of the EU destroy it? If anything it will be a great boost to the EU by helping to kill off the idiotic idea of ever increasing political union. The more the EU expands, the more diverse of opinion it becomes, and the chances of a unified policy on anything remotely controversial all but dies."

You fucking rim-job, it's a political union, unity is the whole fucking point. Europe is strong in its social and economic unity; Turks might like to pretend they are European, but they hail from a long tradition of religious intolerance that is fundamentally incompatible with western ideals.

So basically if i was in your head i whould have heard

'Turkey ? isnt that some kind of arab people terrorist place ?, yeah probably, so burqas, suicide bombers and genocide, yep that's pretty much it.'
idiot.

Eat shit and die, motherfucker.

"The EU represents western ideals like women's rights and secularism. Turkey is known for neither, despite being "officially" secular: "About 99 percent of the population is registered as Muslim, mostly Sunni" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion). Sorry bro, I really don't need Europe more Islamicized than it already is. Then again, if Turkey manages to ban burqas, then I wouldn't be so opposed."

Banning burqas? I thought the West stood for freedom. Now you're telling me this "secular" union that protects woman's rights must refuse to allow a woman to wear a certain kind of religious clothing? Concern about the spread of radical Islam is valid, but I don't think banning an entire country entrance for a very small minority of the population is an acceptable response.

"So, Turkey, admit to the genocide and ban burqas and then I won't mind if you enter the EU."

Again (and perhaps you're about to address this, if you do my apologies), what does a strictly-nominal proclamation do? Is that no different from their "proclamation" of secularization you're deriding right now?

"You fucking rim-job, it's a political union, unity is the whole fucking point. Europe is strong in its social and economic unity; Turks might like to pretend they are European, but they hail from a long tradition of religious intolerance that is fundamentally incompatible with western ideals."

Oh, right, because Christianity has been a shining beacon of western ideals for the vast majority of its existence.

1)Secular does not mean irreligious.

2) Turkey does not deny the Armenian genocide, they deny it was a Genocide... Apart from justifying it on the basis of Ottoman Armenians supporting the Russian invasion, (and signing up as Russian Armenians during the first world war) - this is one justification they give for the harsh treatment and many deaths, but they deny that it counts as a genocide...

@Dunecat: the ban on burqas is a deprivation of the human right to religion: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

- the arguement that it is to protect these women who are being forced into observing religious practice is probably more valid in Turkey, but that doesn't mean removing the right to observe this religious practice solves the problem.

Many Christian countries have a long history of religious intollerance, including modern day france and switzerland being intollerant of Islam.

@president Eden, em, high five?

I bet you a thousand dollar you could spend a whole month in Turkey and see ZERO burqas, burqas are only seen in Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Koweit, even in Paki-Afghanistan, women don't wear them. And 99% muslim? that just untrue. Even if it was, your country is probably 99% christian, who cares you fucking uninformed bigot

Hahaha, high five indeed, orathaic.

I was all set to write a well reasoned response to this thread. Glad I didn't bother ;)

>Oh, right, because Christianity has been a shining beacon of western ideals for the vast majority of its existence.

Christianity has definitely done its share of awful things (Inquisition, holy wars, et cetera), don't get me wrong. Christianity sucks pretty bad. What I'm trying to say is religion itself is the problem--it's just that Islam is uniquely violent and anti-Western. Kill a cartoonist for drawing your prophet? Chop of a lecturer's hand for insulting your religion? That's not Christianity or Judaism, folks. That's Islam, baby.

I fundamentally disagree with your "human right to religion," and I also disagree with the UN on that matter. @Dunecat: the ban on burqas is a deprivation of the human right to religion: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The reason is because these beliefs, unsupported by factual evidence, mislead and inspire hatred, intolerance, bigotry and tribalism. If you want a good explanation for why this is, read Sam Harris's "The End of Faith," don't go to a forum board based on a fucking board game.

Intolerance of Islam is reactionary--it's because Islam is uniquely unwilling to kowtow to the demands and values of secular western society. My argument is that European tolerance of Islamic intolerance is threatening to tolerance in general--and, as such, it makes sense to not tolerate Islam. Switzerland and France are making positive steps in the right direction, preserving their own non-Islamic cultures from the threat of Islamicization. Now, I wouldn't mind if Switzerland banned crosses atop churches the way they've banned minarets. In fact, I'd call that equality.

So no, I don't buy that everyone is fundamentally entitled to believing whatever he or she wants. There's fact and fiction, and all religion is fiction. The pope protects paedophiles, Jews mutilate the genitals of their boys, and Muslims have honour killings--it's all fucking evil to me.

I will never defend one religion over another. However, it is stupid to pretend that Islam isn't WORSE. It is.

'The reason is because these beliefs, unsupported by factual evidence, mislead and inspire hatred, intolerance, bigotry and tribalism.'

i'm pretty sure if you actually read a bit about Islam that it preaches tolerance and love of mankind, at least the parts of Islam which revere Jesus as their second most important Prophet... I don't know about Mohammed because i'm not too well read on Islam.

Islamicization is not a threat. It is an option for free nations to uphold the rights of their minorities to practice their own beliefs.

"I will never defend one religion over another. However, it is stupid to pretend that Islam isn't WORSE. It is. " - you should try it sometime.

'Islamic' radicalism is not the root of Arab anti-westernism. Though it is the route through which this spreads to the rest of the Islamic world. The Anti-westernism has it's roots in Western Imperialism in the Arab world since the 1960s (ok, there was a lot more Western Imperialism before then, but most of what the EU stands for in a new way to expand and include other nations, influence their policy and spread tolerance without dominating their in an Imperial fashion... that is to say, a lot of the previous western Imperialism has NOT specifically lead to anti-westernism in Arab nations today)

Islam in Turkey is not a problem in my mind. People from anywhere could come up with some crazy belief which i happen to disagree with. They could further threaten my life because of their belief. However i can measure the threat more rationally, and i think the much greater threat to me personally that some Irish man will holds the 'belief' that drinking is fun, and that he is tough, strong, manly, and thus can hold his drink - leading to me getting knocked off my bicycle and killed some day by a drunk driver.

Rationally this is a much bigger threat, however, since it doesn't involve the same tribalism, it is much harder to build a mob to fight this terrible belief system. (the tribalism which you, DuneCat, use to blame Islam for all the evils committed by some, and to justify the exclusion of Turkey from our Community)

Killing tens of thousands and starving millions who don't want to make way for colonies, that's not islam of christianity, that's Judaism baby.

ETC ETC ETC

@Dunecat: "The nation is responsible, diplomat61, to admit that, in their past, they committed a genocide." Why? What does it matter? There are plenty of examples unpleasant behaviour by current EU member states that some people think should be admitted or apologised for.

Are you Armenian or is your objection based on your apparent anti-Islam stance?

Your assumption about my opinions and motives is simplistic and wrong. I may be English but I am a supporter of Britain's membership and the Euro; and there a number of my countrymen who hold the same views. As it happens I have lived in The Netherlands for the last 9 years, working on pan-European projects so I am well versed in the benefits and practicalities of EU membership.

"I fundamentally disagree with your "human right to religion," and I also disagree with the UN on that matter."

Well, I never actually claimed it, though I shall now. The European Union is secular; there is a separation of church and state. Your desire to ban burqas would indicate favoring non-Islamic religions over Islam, violating the separation of church and state that exists in the EU.

And why ban crosses atop churches, as a tangential question? That seems to me as if it violates property rights... all in the name of gross religious intolerance?

I have a feeling we're at an impasse anyway, so forgive the weakness of my reply to that.


(I'd also note a distinct lack of address given to my query concerning acknowledgment of the genocide.)

Conveniently, Sam Harris has refuted all of your arguments. I defer to his book "The End of Faith" for explanation. You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655/

"Killing tens of thousands and starving millions who don't want to make way for colonies, that's not islam of christianity, that's Judaism baby." Well, that's actually limited to Israel (you don't see Florida Jews doing that!), but hey, I never pretended to defend any religion. I'll tell you what it's not--it's not atheism, that's for damn sure.

I don't care for any of the religions, my bitches. They're all totally fucked. I'm not Armenian.

"i'm pretty sure if you actually read a bit about Islam that it preaches tolerance and love of mankind, at least the parts of Islam which revere Jesus as their second most important Prophet..."

LOL, actually, there's this book called the Qur'an, it's a pretty good authority on Islam, and I'm pretty familiar with it. If you need to know more about the Qur'an, I recommend this text by Michael Cook: http://www.amazon.com/Koran-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192853449

(I'd also note a distinct lack of address given to my query concerning acknowledgment of the genocide.)

A token acknowledgment is worthless, I agree. I don't think a token acknowledgment is sufficient. You made a straw man argument; it's totally irrelevant. A better question is what should Turkey do to make up for the Armenian genocide? And that, I don't know. But perhaps the Armenians have some good ideas! Let me ask this Armenian Lexus sales rep I know and I'll get right back to you.

> And why ban crosses atop churches, as a tangential question? That seems to me as if it violates property rights... all in the name of gross religious intolerance?

Religion itself preaches intolerance. That is why it need not be offered the protections of tolerance. However, the best solution isn't necessarily banning them--it's educating children to be critical thinkers. Children who think critically roundly reject religion (all religions). The government need only make it "safe" for those who are protected by reason, not by faith. Those who would believe that this life is nothing more than a vehicle for the next do not show enough reverence for life as we know it to be positive members of society.

> And 99% muslim? that just untrue. Even if it was, your country is probably 99% christian, who cares you fucking uninformed bigot

LOL, I mean, Wikipedia has been wrong from time to time. But this is from the US Library of Congress Federal Research Division. I'll paste for your enjoyment!

"Religion: More than 99 percent of the population is Muslim, mostly Sunni. Christianity (Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic) and Judaism are the other religions in practice, but the non-Muslim population declined in the early 2000s. Beginning in the 1980s, the role of religion in the state has been a divisive issue, as influential factions challenged the complete secularization called for by Kemalism and the observance of Islamic practices experienced a substantial revival. In the early 2000s, Islamic groups challenged the concept of the secular state with increasing vigor after the Erdoğan government had calmed the issue in 2003. The Alevi community, a group of non-orthodox Muslims that make up 10–25 percent of the population, has suffered discrimination and occasional massacres."

You can read this for yourself right here bro: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,COUNTRYPROF,TUR,4562 8cf2,46f9135d0,0.html

i'm so glad you can refer me to amazon, perhaps you have read some good arguements there. I would question how well you understood them if you can't actually tell me anything about them.

Still i will take it you didn't add anything other than a claim that you know thigns we don't know, and we can 'go look them up'/'buy the book' if we wish. Thanks for playing.

"A token acknowledgment is worthless, I agree. I don't think a token acknowledgment is sufficient. You made a straw man argument; it's totally irrelevant."

Not exactly. I'm asking why a token acknowledgment is even being required if, as we know, it's worthless. Why even bother? What purpose does it serve?

"A better question is what should Turkey do to make up for the Armenian genocide? And that, I don't know. But perhaps the Armenians have some good ideas! Let me ask this Armenian Lexus sales rep I know and I'll get right back to you."

Answer: nothing. Turkey, now, did not do shit to the Armenians. Turkey 100ish years ago did, and Turkey 100ish years ago, were it here today, ought be held accountable. But Turkey now shouldn't be compelled to do anything.

"Religion itself preaches intolerance. That is why it need not be offered the protections of tolerance."

Ironic. Carry on.

"However, the best solution isn't necessarily banning them--it's educating children to be critical thinkers. Children who think critically roundly reject religion (all religions). The government need only make it "safe" for those who are protected by reason, not by faith."

I don't think that's the case. I think children who think critically roundly -- loathe though I am to include myself in that number, I'm 18 but must confess to being a child at heart -- either don't approach religion with the same level of critical thought, or if they do, they're not convinced enough to switch. And the reason is simple: neither the theist nor the atheist side has it all figured out, and never will. Much as Bill O'Reilly failed to convince Richard Dawkins -- or anyone else -- by arguing "science doesn't have all the answers, therefore religion," the inverse is equally false: "religion doesn't have all the answers, therefore science" doesn't fit, either. And trying to reduce the side with whom you disagree to an inferior class of human beings by taking their right to believe what they wish away, while retaining your own, in light of this fact is no more tolerant or searching for truth than the very people with whom you disagree.

"Those who would believe that this life is nothing more than a vehicle for the next do not show enough reverence for life as we know it to be positive members of society."

Frankly, from my experiences this is entirely wrong. If anything, I've noticed more moral apathy out of the ones who believe this life is all there is than those waiting for the next. And I think it's quite evident in this article that religious folks are actually more likely to create positive change through philanthropy than nonreligious folks, as a generalization. That's not to say religious types are better, of course, but to refute the absurd notion that their religious stance makes them less worthy of having their own beliefs and less able to create positive change in society.

The article: http://philanthropy.com/article/Who-Gives-More-Democrats-or/49377/